The morality behind playing as "Nazis" in SH3

[Mudrik]

This post is in no way meant to offend anyone.

I have recently been involved in a discussion in the thread concerning the setting for SH5.

In that thread a post had been made by someone saying that they hate to play as a Nazi. I pointed out that not all Germans were Nazis and that the U-boat crews were brave men who were sent to their certain deaths.

I was not defending Nazis or suggesting that they are morally sound people. I was simply trying to look at the situation from the point of view of the men who actually had to fight and suggest that they were not climbing into their subs with swastika armbands.

There then proceeded a discussion during which many issues of morality were raised, where I think I was accused of having no moral compass and of basically sitting on the fence. Funny that seeing as I am a pacifist and believe that we should all try to live together in peace and harmony.

Can I just point out to anyone who is interested, a few facts which I believe illustrate how it was not just the Nazis who were the big bad wolf in history and therefore back up my view that we can all be as bad as one another given half a chance and that very few people in the world can confidently stand up and say that their country has never been involved in immoral activities:-

It was the Assyrians who first used mass forced resettlement of a population for their own territorial gains.

The Romans forcefully expanded into a massive empire over many centuries and hated the Christians.

The Vikings raided countries throughout Europe and created settlements wherever they went.

Napoleon was responsible for gaining France huge portions of Europe and expanding their empire.

Between the 11th and 16th centuries there were the Crusades where a huge army of devout Christians went to the Holy lands to forcefully take them back from the Muslims. A holy war which I think is what the hard-line Muslims seem to be trying to throw back at the western world and everyone is complaining about (hey, we started it).

Between 1915 and 1917 the Turks entered into a policy of Genocide and wiped nearly a million Armenians off the face of the planet.

For centuries the English fought their way around the world taking vast continents under their control and effectively turning countries into slaves for the gain of the British empire.

The British, French and Dutch invaded the USA, slaughtering (some argue Genocide) and relocated the indigenous peoples who had been there for approximately 30 thousand years.

Spain and Portugal invaded South America. (that’s why they all speak Spanish and Portuguese over there).

The French invaded Canada (that’s why there are French Canadians).


The British invaded Australia and began widespread slaughter and relocation of the Aborigines who had been there for between 40 and 70 thousand years.

Genghis Khan created one of the most powerful empires in history, not always peacefully I’m sure.

The Americans used to ship thousands of "Negros" (I don't like that word at all) across the world and sold them into slavery. A situation which was still echoing through society until the 60’s and 70’s.

During the Spanish civil war the Americans supplied military hardware to the Franco regime. Franco was a dictator just like Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin.

Stalin who was allied with the UK and USA in WW2 was responsible for the deaths of approximately 20 million people (makes Hitler look like an amature). Does anyone object to playing as a Russian in IL-2 because Stalin murdered 20 million?

Countries which at one time or another have been accused of war crimes include - Canada, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, UK, USA and Yugoslavia.

Admiral Donitz was accused of war crimes for his use of "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare". He received no punishment after it came to light that both the UK & USA had issued similar orders.

The firebombing of Dresden (always a touchy subject) is thought to have killed between 25 & 35 thousand people and was not proved to have any significant military facilities.

The US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (another very contentious subject) together killed approximately 250 - 300 thousand non military personnel in a split second with many tens of thousand deaths afterwards attributed to the radiation produced.

Wernher von Braun was a member of the Nazi party but welcomed with open arms by the USA as they needed his expertise to allow them to develop a delivery method for their new found nuclear might. I guess he must have been one of the "OK to be a Nazi Nazis".

The USA backed Ho Chi Minh during WW2 and then turned the tides and tried to defeat him in Vietnam.

The USA also supplied military aid to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war but are now trying to justify a means to enter into a war with them as they are now classed as being in the “axis of terror”.

The Irish were fighting a terrorist war with Britain for many years, trying to secure independence. The USA provided financial backing and military hardware to assist them in their terror campaign (war on terror anyone?).

North Korea has one of the worst human rights policies with approximately 200 thousand people held in detention camps (does the world try and stop them?).

Should I mention the apartheid system in South Africa and the imprisonment into labour camps of people who spoke out against this system, most notably Nelson Mandela who spent nearly 30 years in prison for his beliefs?

How about Saddam Hussein and the chemical weapon attack on the Kurdish people.

Idi Armein who is thought to have been responsible for 300 to 500 thousand deaths.

Tito and his concentration camps.

Pinochets’ dictatorship.

The Ayatollah Khomeini.

Galtieri and the estimated 30 thousand political objectors who simply disappeared.

The list could go on and on.

I find it amusing that whenever the Gulf war and the way in which the west justified going to war with Iraq (to secure oil rights for the next few decades? no, really?), people always knee jerk and suggest that what is being hinted at is that it is all Bush’s fault, Hey wake up guys, we have one too, ever heard of Tony Blair?

Whilst on the subject of the Bush administration. They have a pretty poor human rights reputation for what is going on down in Guantanamo.

If there was no Nationalism in the world there would be no need for borders, national anthems and national flags. Most countries in the world are nationalistic by default.

So, when you are discussing the morals of playing as a German submariner, when you are saying that if you don't agree with something you should fight against it, when you are suggesting that people have no moral compass and when you are on your soap box shouting about how great it is to be a citizen in (insert country here) because they have done no wrong, have a look at some history.

History has been filled with dictators and genocidal maniacs from many countries and many political persuasions. Take a better look at the world around you and don’t get too over emotional about history. What’s done is done and we must try to be positive and move on with a view to taking care of each other and our planet.

[Sailor Steve]

We have a special forum reserved for topics like this. It's called 'General Topics'.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/foru...ysprune=&f=175

[Canonicus]

Its simple....U-boats were commanded and crewed by brave men who, unfortunately, were fighting for the death and destruction of free civilizations.

BTW... you didn't happen to mention the genocide Japanese occupiers perpetrated upon the civilian population of Nanking, China..... You know...the infamous "Rape of Nanking"?

The A-bombs were the Japs getting their Karma back.

[SUBMAN1]

You have many contradictions in your post and inaccuracies. Some examples:

The USA also supplied military aid to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war but are now trying to justify a means to enter into a war with them as they are now classed as being in the “axis of terror”.

You are talking about two different governments, with the only link as being the same land mass here. The US backed the Shaw of Iran, but when Kohoemeni overthrough the Shaw, that is when the US turned its back.

Between the 11th and 16th centuries there were the Crusades where a huge army of devout Christians went to the Holy lands to forcefully take them back from the Muslims. A holy war which I think is what the hard-line Muslims seem to be trying to throw back at the western world and everyone is complaining about (hey, we started it).

This was not started by the Christians. You must be getting your history from the Muslims or something. This was in response to the Muslims ever expanding their own territory - especially into Spain and surrounding countries.


The Americans used to ship thousands of "Negros" (I don't like that word at all) across the world and sold them into slavery. A situation which was still echoing through society until the 60’s and 70’s.

This was mostly a Brisitsh endevour who then turned around and sold them to the US for work on US plantations. The rounding up of the slaves themselves was not even really the work of the British, but the work of the people of the very own countries these people were native from. Nice brotherhood they have. Also, loose the PC garbage. Its a word and its only a negative word due to PC'ness.


Countries which at one time or another have been accused of war crimes include - Canada, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, UK, USA and Yugoslavia.

Yes - Many countries have been accused falsely of war crimes. Some of these countries in your list include Canada, the UK, and the USA. The reason? Some people think war is a crime in itself. To constitute a war crime of a country involves a country giving an explicite order to do something against the Geneva convention. Inidividual soldiers acting on their own accord does not make a whole country guilty of war crimes. Some people just don't get that however.

The firebombing of Dresden (always a touchy subject) is thought to have killed between 25 & 35 thousand people and was not proved to have any significant military facilities.

People don't seem to get that civilians in a war are not protected. They actually can be of military value because you break the will of the people, you break the back of the country. I beleive they are a teir 5 target in the scheme of things. Teir 1 targets would be like C & C, headqaurters, etc.

Anyway, I could go on and on about this, but you get the idea.

-S

[Mudrik]

OK (he says with hands held high). I apologise if I've upset anyone, covered old ground, posted in the wrong forum or used gross historical innacuracies. No offense meant to anyone.

I'm not a politically motivated person and I guess I have a poor understanding of why people would want to have a war.

I'll shut up now and go and play SH4

[CCIP]

Here's what I will say:

Any good, sane simulation gamer knows the difference between 'realism' and 'reality'. Simulation gamers are generally distinguished not only by their level of obsessiveness over detail, but also their overall maturity.

So, any mature simulation player that can't, at the end of the day, distinguish playing the Nazis from supporting the Nazis should probably seek counseling :hmm:

[Dowly]

This subject has been talked over dozens of times already. And like stated already, not every german in WWII were nazis, they had no choice to not fight (well, they had and it was death). And Uboat arm was one of the least politically affected arms of the german military.

[Lt. Staumeier]

So, uh...people actually claimed that playing SH3 makes you pro-Nazi? C'mon people, you ever heard of videogames? In closing, I'd like to say I agree with the op here. Noone is innocent, and few are good guys. Some just hide their bad side better than others.

[kurtz]

You have many contradictions in your post and inaccuracies. Some examples:

The USA also supplied military aid to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war but are now trying to justify a means to enter into a war with them as they are now classed as being in the “axis of terror”.

You are talking about two different governments, with the only link as being the same land mass here. The US backed the Shaw of Iran, but when Kohoemeni overthrough the Shaw, that is when the US turned its back.

Total agreement -Kurtz


Between the 11th and 16th centuries there were the Crusades where a huge army of devout Christians went to the Holy lands to forcefully take them back from the Muslims. A holy war which I think is what the hard-line Muslims seem to be trying to throw back at the western world and everyone is complaining about (hey, we started it).

This was not started by the Christians. You must be getting your history from the Muslims or something. This was in response to the Muslims ever expanding their own territory - especially into Spain and surrounding countries.The Americans used to ship thousands of "Negros" (I don't like that word at all) across the world and sold them into slavery. A situation which was still echoing through society until the 60’s and 70’s.

IIRC the three crusades were started by the christians to reclaim Jerusalem as it had fallen into the hands of the infidel. There was also around that time a massive muslim expansion which if it hadn't been halted and reversed in Spain would have ended civilisation.-Kurtz
This was mostly a Brisitsh endevour who then turned around and sold them to the US for work on US plantations. The rounding up of the slaves themselves was not even really the work of the British, but the work of the people of the very own countries these people were native from. Nice brotherhood they have. Also, loose the PC garbage. Its a word and its only a negative word due to PC'ness.

Agreed mostly Arabs acting through local Africans, I like to think we made it more efficient. Also do we credit for stopping it.-Kurtz


Countries which at one time or another have been accused of war crimes include - Canada, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, UK, USA and Yugoslavia.

Yes - Many countries have been accused falsely of war crimes. Some of these countries in your list include Canada, the UK, and the USA. The reason? Some people think war is a crime in itself. To constitute a war crime of a country involves a country giving an explicite order to do something against the Geneva convention. Inidividual soldiers acting on their own accord does not make a whole country guilty of war crimes. Some people just don't get that however.

The firebombing of Dresden (always a touchy subject) is thought to have killed between 25 & 35 thousand people and was not proved to have any significant military facilities.

People don't seem to get that civilians in a war are not protected. They actually can be of military value because you break the will of the people, you break the back of the country. I beleive they are a teir 5 target in the scheme of things. Teir 1 targets would be like C & C, headqaurters, etc.

Apparently we were going to charge germany with this at Nuremberg but then we realised we'd done it ourselves and thought better of it. I believe it's still a crime according to either the Hague or Geneva convention. Still, as they say in Apocalypse now, charging people with murder would be like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500.


Anyway, I could go on and on about this, but you get the idea.

Agreed we got the idea the first time. I'm just nitpicking on the details, sometime when there's a war on people get overexcited, happens in peacetime too

[Heibges]

I believe Hap Arnold said famously to Curtis LeMay that if the United States lost the War, they would both the arrested as War Criminals. And many other American officers were against targeting cities including Ray Spruance, who won WWII in the Pacific for the United States at the Battle of Midway.

The way Statistical Analysis mad terror bombing to logical and so predictable was probably hard to argue with during WWII.

And come on. Arnold and LeMay were going to do what they had to do for job security.

If Jimmy Carter had one the election in 1980 we might not have any manned bombers today at all, and 400 Submarines.

I think the military policies of the United States in the second half of the 20th Century was a battle between the follower of Curtin LeMay and the followers of Hyman Rickover.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by Heibges

I think the military policies of the United States in the second half of the 20th Century was a battle between the follower of Curtin LeMay and the followers of Hyman Rickover.

Now don't get me wrong Heibges I'm on your side, but I thought Hyman Rickover was non-polictical or did you just mean his thought's on nuclear power usage?

Rickover was one strange dude. He interviewed people for the nuclear power porgram and always had them sit in a chair with the front two legs two inches shorter so the person he was interviewing was uncomfortable. When he made captain he just sewed another new stripe on his coat sleeve. Three old faded gold stripes and one new gold stripe made him an unusal looking fellow.

[dean_acheson]

[quote=Heibges]If Jimmy Carter had one the election in 1980 we might not have any manned bombers today at all, and 400 Submarines.
[quote]

Doubt it, we would still have inflation rates around 23% and couldn't afford much more than a few patched up GATO boats. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Fish]

The Dutch did there share of slaughtering around the world, but not in the US, back you pardon.

New Amsterdam (Dutch: Nieuw Amsterdam) was the 17th century Dutch colonial town that later became New York City.
The town developed outside of Fort Amsterdam on Manhattan Island in the New Netherland territory (1614–1664) which was situated between 38 and 42 degrees latitude as a provincial extension of the Dutch Republic from 1624. Provincial possession of the territory was accomplished with the first settlement which was established on Governors Island in 1624. A year later, in 1625, construction of a citadel comprising Fort Amsterdam was commenced. Earlier, the harbor and the river had been discovered, explored and charted by an expedition of the Dutch East India Company captained by Henry Hudson in 1609. From 1611 through 1614, the territory was surveyed and charted by various private commercial companies on behalf of the States General of the Dutch Republic and operated for the interests of private commercial entities prior to official possession as a North American extension of the Dutch Republic in the form of an overseas province in 1624.
The town of New Amsterdam became a city when it received municipal rights in 1653 and was unilaterally reincorporated as New York City in June 1665. This makes NYC the oldest incorporated city in the United States. The town was founded by New Netherland's second director, Willem Verhulst who, together with his council, selected Manhattan Island as the optimal place for permanent settlement in 1625 by the Dutch West India Company. That year, military engineer and surveyor Cryn Fredericksz van Lobbrecht laid out a citadel with Fort Amsterdam as centerpiece. To secure the settlers' property and its surroundings according to Dutch law, the third director, Peter Minuit, created a deed with the Manhattan Indians in 1626 which officially authorized legal possession of Manhattan according to Dutch Laws.
The city, situated on the strategic, fortifiable southern tip of the island of Manhattan was to maintain New Netherland's provincial integrity by defending river access to the company's fur trade operations in the North River, later named Hudson River. Furthermore, it was entrusted to safeguard the West India Company's exclusive access to New Netherland's other two estuaries; the Delaware River and the Connecticut River. New Amsterdam developed into the largest Dutch colonial settlement in the New Netherland province, now the New York Tri-State Region, and remained a Dutch possession until August 1664, when it fell provisionally into the hands of the English.
The Dutch Republic regained it in August 1673 with a fleet of 21 ships, renaming the city "New Orange". New Netherland was ceded permanently to the English in November 1674 in the Treaty of Westminster. The 1625 date of the founding of New Amsterdam is now commemorated in the Official Seal of the City of New York (formerly, the year on the seal was 1664, the year of the provisional Articles of Transfer, ensuring New Netherlanders that they "shall keep and enjoy the liberty of their consciences in religion", negotiated with the English by Petrus Stuyvesant and his council).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam

[Chock]

The fact that many of the Kriegsmarine might not have been Nazi party members themselves is well documented, but signing up to join a military force, this is the sort of chance you take. I daresay there are quite a few Democrats in the US Army right now who don't necessarily agree with G W Bush's policies, but follow their orders nonetheless, that they do so doesn't make them Republicans. I know many friends of mine in the British forces wouldn't p*ss on Tony Blair if he was on fire, but they still do as they are ordered, as that was the pledge they took when they signed up.

Here's some interesting takes on the matter:

Adolf Hitler: "I have a reactionary army, a National Socialist air force, and a Christian navy.'

Ace U-Boat commander Reinhard Suhren (U-564), once famously shouted up to the quayside as his U-Boat came in from patrol: 'Are the Nazis still in charge?'
Upon receiving the reply that they were, he promptly put his U-Boat engines into reverse and backed away from the dock as a joke. Not everyone was amused onshore, but the vast majority were it seems, as he never got into trouble for doing this.

U-802 commander, Helmut Schmoeckel was in fact half-Jewish, and amongst other things, he is famous for writing the book 'Menschlichkeit im Seekrieg' (ISBN 978-3813202250), which is about instances of U-Boat crews rendering assistance to allied sailors.

Many noted Allied leaders came forward at the end of the Second World War to speak up for Kriegsmarine officers and men who were under the threat of being charged with war cimes, in fact, Admiral Karl Donitz himself was not prosecuted because of testimonials from many Allied commanders who stepped up in defence of him. The same cannot be said for the Luftwaffe's Herman Goering.

And there are many more tales of a similar nature which prove the point.

U-Boat crews were noted for many transgressions from official Nazi doctrine: They regularly wore clothing other than their official issue, quite often they wore British Battledress outfits that had been captured when the Allies evacuated Dunkirk. A notion which hardly sits with the common movie misconception that U-Boat commanders spent all their time Goose-stepping up and down the interior of their U-Boat in an SS uniform.

Whilst other military units and civilians in Nazi Germany were prohibited from listening to Allied radio broadcasts (and faced stern punishment if caught doing so, men of the Kriegsmarine made no secret of the fact that they did so, under the pretence that it offered intelligence on Allied shipping.

Similarly, jazz records - another severely frowned upon vice in Nazi Germany owing to the fact that most of the decent jazz artists were black - were known to be favourites amongst the U-Boat crews. All this is also far cry from the oft-portrayed Nazi fanatic U-Boat commanders of many Allied propaganda movies, and of course, the preposterous movie, U-571. The portrayal of this in Das Boot might be seen as somewhat apologist to many, but it is apparently very close to the truth, although Karl-Friedrich Merten refuted some of (the book) Das Boot's portrayals in his own book 'Wir U-Bootfahrer sagen: "Nein! So war das nicht!' (We U-Boat men say: No, it wasn't so!).

So if it really bothers anyone to simulate driving a U-Boat around, they can take solace from this if they choose, but at the end of the day, it's a computer game, and I'm pretty sure playing it won't turn you into a Nazi.

Anyway, Sieg Hei... ooops, I mean, erm, have fun.

Chock

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Chock

Many noted Allied leaders came forward at the end of the Second World War to speak up for Kriegsmarine officers and men who were under the threat of being charged with war cimes, in fact, Admiral Karl Donitz himself was not prosecuted because of testimonials from many Allied commanders who stepped up in defence of him. The same cannot be said for the Luftwaffe's Herman Goering.

Well not to nitpick too much, but he was prosecuted and convicted, except on a much lighter charge than the others. :p

Also, while I don't agree that German armed forces always deserve some sort of forgiveness, but... step into their shoes for a moment. If you're a young German man in 1939 or even 1944, would you really become a deserter, a criminal, and all those other nasty things instead of doing what any patriotic man would consider their duty?