The morality behind playing as "Nazis" in SH3

[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.

[robbo180265]

Erm - Nah I've done this before,but hey - you guys be my guest

[geetrue]

I had pizza last night and went to see "At Worlds End" the Pirates 3 movie. I had a really good time ... :p

I don't want to offend anyone either.

Why don't we lock the thread before it's time or just say, "Hello"

[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.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by geetrue

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.

Basically, Rickover thought the entire surface fleet was obsolete, and would be destroyed in a few days in a real war. At the same time, manned bombers were being viewed as obsolete. The crossroads came during Jimmy Carter's (Rickover's protege) presidency.

Like Clinton gets credit for the drive to balance the budget which actually started under Bush, Reagan gets credit for a defense buildup that actually started under Carter.

Carter was going to build the Ohio with the D-5 and Los Angeles Class submarines, but he was not going to fund the MX Missle or the B-2 Bomber. And in retrospect they both turned out to be huge pork barrel projects along with Star Wars. It is doubtful we would have much of a surface fleet at all if Carter had won a second term.

But when Reagan got elected there was that push for a 600 fleet Navy, and the MX Missle, B-2 Bomber, and Star Wars were heavily funded.

[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

[Subnuts]

Why do I want to watch Das Boot so bad after reading this thread?