The morality behind playing as "Nazis" in SH3

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

This thread will stay open unless there is behavioral cause to close it. If we can tolerate 22,549 discussions about Iraq, we can have 5 discussions about games and fascism.

EDIT: I would appreciate, since newer members are not clarvoyant, if our upstanding regulars could refrain from decapitating the newbies if they start a topic that has been discussed before. Do try to be, at minimal, civil.

Thanks,
The Management

You have a point, and I hadn't really thought about it enough obviously. I was attempting to say that I didn't want to participate in the inevitable argument, and I apologise.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Mudrik

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.

Thats it all in one.

And thanks for the history lesson

[geetrue]

Good! Now I can make a simple statement, "I love sub sims", because I was on the winning side of at least
two of the Silent Hunter series.

I have never met a Nazi and I have no intentions of meeting one, but I did know a German girl one time ...
however she didn't have much clothes on and our conversation soon turned to one of mutal respect for one another.

[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.

[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?

[Chock]

Yup, that's true CCIP, I merely meant that Donitz was not hung, or put in prison for a very long time, as opposed to many other German big names from WW2, who certainly were.

And to look at it another way, much of the view back towards historical events is controlled by the victors of wars, who often 'get to write the history books', so when you consider that, it's fairly indicative that the U-Boat guys were mostly just soldiers doing a job, since their reputation has managed to survive even though they were on the losing side.

In the end, much of what we view as right and wrong depends on which side of the line we are standing at the time. However honourable someone is in a war, war is still about killing people and making them suffer, so I'm not pretending that the Nazis weren't ultimately evil, just pointing out, as many others have on this thread, that you can't always tar the populace of an entire nation with the same brush.

I daresay some victims of ANC attacks probably viewed Nelson Mandela as a bad guy, and the civilians and POWs that drowned as a result of the RAF's attacks on the Ruhr dams could be regarded as victims of a war crime by Arthur Harris, or the crews of the 617 Squadron Lancasters if you choose to look at it from another side. Had Germany won the war, we might even have been discussing the morality of flying a simulated Spitfire or a P-51 Mustang on a forum, and Destroyer Command might have been severely frowned upon.

Fortunately, I think most people here can appreciate the technology of some German military stuff from WW2 without revelling in the nastier aspects of things, or throwing Nazi salutes everywhere they go.

Chock

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I would appreciate, since newer members are not clarvoyant, if our upstanding regulars could refrain from decapitating the newbies if they start a topic that has been discussed before.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Mudrik

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

Actually it wasn't Canada back then. It was just French Territories of what they might loosely refer to as Canada. And it was actually the English that attacked the French. At the Battle of the Plains of Abraham the English General Wolf drew Montcalm out of the his walls to fight in the open. Stupid cause Quebec City was walled, as can still be seen today in the old part of the city.

Another proud day for French military genius.

Sorry, but I had to get that little bit of Canadiana cleared up.

As for the morality of playing a German officer in a WW2 sim... well its a game that simulates war. War is bad. So anything where we fetishize war is bad, unless we take it for what it is. And I can't find any historical source that says that German U-boats did anything that the American subs didn't with a few rare exceptions in individual commanders on both sides. So the argument is irrelavent. Crying "OMG Nazi!" is meaningless without any actual evil present. The blanket of Naziism doesn't characterize every person in the war.

Now, maybe a game like say... Auschwitz Tycoon could be seen as a truly disgusting game. But thats not the case here.

[Frenssen]

Simulations are games. We are launching torpedoes against pixels on a screen. No one gets boiled alive in the engine rooms of our unfortunate victims. No one drifts on a lifeboat dying of hunger and thirst.
If we take this discussion to the extreme we shouldn`t be playing violent games at all. Because we all know taking lives is wrong.

[fatty]

The way I see it, whether or not you think you are these guys:



you're playing a simulation of the blowing up of these guys:



with the overall objective of helping this guy:



beat these guys:



Maybe they weren't all nazis, but they weren't many Marco Ramiuses either. Did any u-boats actually defect before 1945? Anyway, if taking part in the above bothers you, that is okay. It doesn't bother me - submarines are too cool.

[tycho102]

I see no issue with playing a kraut in a video game. Plus the music is pretty darn good. Panzer General 2 also had good music. What makes these games even better is the historical accuracy of them -- even if the AI isn't quite a Bradley or Patton.


@Mudrick
Your little god damn blurb for the Great Khan is wonderfully underwhelming. The Great Khan was a wise man, he was a kind man, he had plans, he had wisdom.

He'd massacre an entire city of 300,000 people so that the next city would be more apt to surrender before resisting....and killing Mongols in the process. City-states would send out envoys to the Mongols hundred of kilometers before they arrived, negotiating for the survival of the city and pledging no resistance to Mongol rule. The Great Khan lost fewer Mongols as a result.

He poured molten silver and gold into the eye sockets and mouth of several enemy monarchs and leaders...while they were still alive. Word got around that it was better to surrender than resist.

He conquered all the way down to, and including, Persia. The moslems are still pissed at him to this day. They employ his same level of barbarity but they hate the fact he dominated them using their same tactics against them. It's a wonderful display of alpha-male behavior within a pack of animals.

He used the mobility of his horse-archers much as modern armies use their mechanized infantry. The logistics of the Great Khan are still studied at West Point, in depth, simply because the guy moved his army and lived "off the land" at a rate the world had not yet encountered.

The recurved bow. Not quite a compound, but it got the job done from horseback. And it was a Mongol invention -- not captured technology from China, Korea, Russia, India, etc.

[P_Funk]

@Fatty

The way I see it is that any game that make a fetish of war (important term there in my opinion) is taking this


giving him this


and making him do this


We love to get hooked on the fact that they're Nazis but the fact is that all sides in war are evil. Evil is the nature of war. But you are doing evil for a cause. Murder to protect life. Its all some weird paradox. Its not about Nazis or Hitler. Its about the paradox of human conflict. And we make a game out of it. My grandfather said that he didn't like the war, that he hated killing, but he did it and brutally. He told me once not too long ago "whatever you do with your life, don't join the fuc*ing army". So its all evil anyway. But we make it into something entertaining and joyous and that however is the weird fetishization of war that is the real conflict in all of this. How we rationalize our perverse taste in conflict as a form of entertainment is the real question.