Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: SS

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: SS Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SS - 11/23/2007 7:23:04 PM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Castro hasn't been seen in public for several years now- and his brother runs the country.


Didnt that happen a year ago? It doesn't mean he's dead...

Besides, he appeared on Cuban television this June with the leader of the Vietnamese communists.

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 61
RE: SS - 11/23/2007 8:43:54 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

quote:

Castro hasn't been seen in public for several years now- and his brother runs the country.


Didnt that happen a year ago? It doesn't mean he's dead...

Besides, he appeared on Cuban television this June with the leader of the Vietnamese communists.


Well, I want him to hang in there for a while yet.

There're some funds I'll be getting my hands on. Then I want to plonk them into companies positioned to do well when Cuba opens up.

...Which it will, once Castro dies. Everyone's just politely waiting for him to kick off before they basically turn Cuba into the 51st state, economically.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 62
RE: SS - 11/23/2007 9:09:31 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

However, if you keep reading, you will discover the reasons why I think Germany is quite within her rights to ban the swastika and nordic runes if she sees fit.


Banning the Swastika from public displays such as political rallies is one thing and may or may not be warranted in todays Germany and they do as they feel neccessay.

But this Swastika law, put in effect by the Allies at the end of World War 2 to suppress some sort of guerrila war/Nazi revival never invisioned people playing wargames about the war 70 years later.

It´s catch all legislation that is very out dated.

Every law is made for a reason and I´m sure throwing 3 Berliners in jail for playing ¨The Burning Blue¨ that has a Swastika on a game piece is not what they had in mind.

quote:

Anyway, if I ever feel like doing a scenario covering some situation like this, I'll go right ahead. Auschwitz sounds a bit dull, but I could see a nice 'Operation Erntefest' or perhaps an 'Israel 1948.' Gotta force drive out enough Arab civilian units before you trip the Arab invasion and the consequent ceasefire.


Most wargames focus on armed conflicts between organized military forces Colin, trying to achieve a military objective. Rounding up Jews & Gypsies with SS units to send them to Auschwitz wouldn´t fit this category as Jews and Gypsies were not a military force but a civilian group in WW2. A game of this type would be in very bad taste anyways.

quote:

My point about the Totenkopf, and that the death head symbol means more than just another SS division, is that the SS deaths head was synonymous with the consentration camps, and the mass murders carried out especially in Russia, but in every country under the rule of the SS, and Gestapo...


War games using the Totenkopf focus on it as a miliary combat unit though. The politics and crimes of this unit do not enter into the spectrum. Using such a logic we could follow it all the way out to renaming all the Luftwaffe units ¨Pink butterfly 1¨ & ¨Pink butterfly 2¨ so we all feel ¨fluffy¨ when playing wargames.

quote:

Castro hasn't been seen in public for several years now- and his brother runs the country.


Castro was on Maradonas TV show in an interview a couple years ago. He calls in on the telephone to Chavez´s TV show in Venezuela pretty regular I think. I do too think his brother does pretty much of the day to day runnings in Cuba as Castros mind seems to be slipping quite a bit.

quote:

Anyway, especially with the Swastika it can get confusing, as it's found in ancient Finnish sources as a symbol of 'good luck' and/or solar energy...In modern Hinduism the 'Swastik' as it's called there, is considered the sun symbol of somekind... (I could be mixing things here).
Also, in some Buddhist thanka's I have seen this ancient symbol..So, when you see a Swastik symbol on a ww2 Finnish airplane or tank for example, please remember that it had nothing to do with the Nazi party, and was taken from the ancient Finnish symbol... Although the Finns did change the swastik for a blue and white roundel for the air forces and armoured forces after ww2...


I´ve seen pictures of Finnish swastikas on tanks. Theirs was a little bit different design than as the Nazis used it. It was at a 90 degree angle and had a white border around the black. I don´t know if they always used it as such but that´s how it looked on the tanks.

School of the Americas uses a red German cross as part of its emblem, past and present. Just more proof if you start banning symbols from wargames for political correctness you´ll end up banning them all...









Attachment (1)

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 63
RE: SS - 11/23/2007 11:54:55 PM   
sstevens06


Posts: 276
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

...
Here we get to the crux of the issue: We need to have twice as much space for unit names. I need to be able to have 70th (Young Soldier) Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders!



I heartily second that!


< Message edited by sstevens06 -- 11/23/2007 11:55:48 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 64
RE: SS - 11/24/2007 7:59:22 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Most wargames focus on armed conflicts between organized military forces Colin, trying to achieve a military objective. Rounding up Jews & Gypsies with SS units to send them to Auschwitz wouldn´t fit this category as Jews and Gypsies were not a military force but a civilian group in WW2. A game of this type would be in very bad taste anyways.


First, I'd point out that many people don't see war as a moral activity in the first place, and so they might well feel even a wargame proper was in 'bad taste.'

Secondly, many wargames involve bombing civilians (the 'strategic' air campaigns of World War Two), conflicts between regular troops and groups of armed civilians (the opening stages of the Spanish Civil War), and large-scale 'ethnic cleansing' (any accurate scenario covering the opening stages of Israel's 1948 War).

In Daniel McBride's scenario covering the German 1942 campaign in Russia, he has a forced withdrawal of the Luftwaffe to 'bomb Stalingrad.' Now, that was a pure terror-bombing exercise that killed around 40,000 civilians. I've objected to the feature -- but never on the grounds of its 'bad taste.' Now that you mention it, though, I suppose I could.

World War One was extremely unpleasant for its participants. Poison gas and all the rest of it. For the the Russians, World War Two often involved being forced into action with machine guns at one's back as well as at one's front. Any Japanese occupation of a Chinese urban hex in a scenario covering the Sino-Japanese War implies an orgy of rape and slaughter of up to a quarter of a million Chinese civilians.

So is it in bad taste to cover these campaigns? Obviously, protraying round-ups of Jews in Eastern Europe would be an extreme example -- but I think you've got a continuum here. What you might regard as 'bad taste' some one else might feel quite entitled to simulate, and what you might regard as somehow legitimate someone else might easily regard as in bad taste.

You are -- essentially -- taking the position that portraying some forms of mayhem and slaughter is okay, but portraying others is not. Well, others might feel differently, one way or the other.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/24/2007 8:09:52 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 65
RE: SS - 11/24/2007 8:14:50 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I´ve seen pictures of Finnish swastikas on tanks. Theirs was a little bit different design than as the Nazis used it. It was at a 90 degree angle and had a white border around the black. I don´t know if they always used it as such but that´s how it looked on the tanks.


Well, as far as that goes, run a search on 'Arizona Highway signs Swastika.' American Indian symbol, apparently.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/24/2007 8:16:35 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 66
RE: SS - 11/24/2007 9:42:58 PM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
I´ve seen pictures of Finnish swastikas on tanks. Theirs was a little bit different design than as the Nazis used it. It was at a 90 degree angle and had a white border around the black. I don´t know if they always used it as such but that´s how it looked on the tanks.


Note that the Finnish use of the swastika is not related to Facism...

quote:

The swastika was adopted by the Finnish Air Force after 6 March 1918, when Eric von Rosen donated an aeroplane, adorned with swastikas (his personal good luck symbols), from Sweden to the Finnish white army. The swastika was officially adopted as the nationality marking on the Finnish Air Force planes at 18 March 1918.





_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 67
RE: SS - 11/24/2007 11:09:37 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

First, I'd point out that many people don't see war as a moral activity in the first place, and so they might well feel even a wargame proper was in 'bad taste.'


This is very true. I personally don´t see war as a moral activity as all war is immoral in my opinion to one degree or another.

One might accept dropping a bomb on a bridge knowing full well civilians may be on that bridge as long as it furthers the military objective and another one might not. Still yet, to another it may depend on how many civilians may be on that bridge when they drop their bomb. Others stand by ready to launch nuclear missiles capable of destroying entire cities and millions of people and would do so if called upon to do it. In any case certainly not activities I would consider ¨moral¨

Perhaps necessary, but not something moral or something good. If one is sensitive in this way though they´d never make a good soldier in my opinion.

There are those that consider wargames in general, bad taste. I think this is extreme as no one is really killed. Except maybe a lot of 1´s & 0´s with a computer wargame.

That reminds me of the wargame of ¨Risk¨, called ¨Teg¨ here, slightly different as Teg has ships in it but basicaly the same game. Normally this game is advertised as ¨Conquer the World¨ or something like that.

When released in Germany this slogan was changed to something like ¨Liberate the World¨

Same game, same premise but made ¨politically acceptable¨ by changing the advertising slogan. Doesn´t make a lot of sense to me but extreme political correctness doesn´t make a lot of sense to me in general anyways.

quote:

In Daniel McBride's scenario covering the German 1942 campaign in Russia, he has a forced withdrawal of the Luftwaffe to 'bomb Stalingrad.' Now, that was a pure terror-bombing exercise that killed around 40,000 civilians. I've objected to the feature -- but never on the grounds of its 'bad taste.' Now that you mention it, though, I suppose I could....So is it in bad taste to cover these campaigns?


For me it´s not bad taste. But I´m sure the objective of this scenario is not to see how many civilians you can kill in Stalingrad. If someone made a bombing campaign game, that as an objective was to see how many civilians you can kill in Dresden, London and Tokyo.....that would seem a bit odd to me. I wouldn´t ¨ban¨ such a game, but it would seem...odd.

quote:

You are -- essentially -- taking the position that portraying some forms of mayhem and slaughter is okay, but portraying others is not. Well, others might feel differently, one way or the other.


I think my position is a common sense one. Certainly Colin you can see the difference between a game piece representing an SS unit as a combat unit attempting to capture Minsk being different from an SS game piece for rounding up Poles. Wargames focus on the military aspects of campaigns and wars, not the politics or ideology behind them. As such the symbology in wargames is politically valueless.

But all this doesn´t matter as you said you don´t agree with banning historicaly accurate symbols from wargames...same as me.



(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 68
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 1:00:54 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

First, I'd point out that many people don't see war as a moral activity in the first place, and so they might well feel even a wargame proper was in 'bad taste.'


This is very true. I personally don´t see war as a moral activity as all war is immoral in my opinion to one degree or another.

One might accept dropping a bomb on a bridge knowing full well civilians may be on that bridge as long as it furthers the military objective and another one might not. Still yet, to another it may depend on how many civilians may be on that bridge when they drop their bomb. Others stand by ready to launch nuclear missiles capable of destroying entire cities and millions of people and would do so if called upon to do it. In any case certainly not activities I would consider ¨moral¨

Perhaps necessary, but not something moral or something good. If one is sensitive in this way though they´d never make a good soldier in my opinion.

There are those that consider wargames in general, bad taste. I think this is extreme as no one is really killed. Except maybe a lot of 1´s & 0´s with a computer wargame.

That reminds me of the wargame of ¨Risk¨, called ¨Teg¨ here, slightly different as Teg has ships in it but basicaly the same game. Normally this game is advertised as ¨Conquer the World¨ or something like that.

When released in Germany this slogan was changed to something like ¨Liberate the World¨

Same game, same premise but made ¨politically acceptable¨ by changing the advertising slogan. Doesn´t make a lot of sense to me but extreme political correctness doesn´t make a lot of sense to me in general anyways.



If anything, that makes it worse. I'd much rather deal with people who are frankly trying to conquer me than people who have decided that they're 'liberating' me.

quote:



quote:

In Daniel McBride's scenario covering the German 1942 campaign in Russia, he has a forced withdrawal of the Luftwaffe to 'bomb Stalingrad.' Now, that was a pure terror-bombing exercise that killed around 40,000 civilians. I've objected to the feature -- but never on the grounds of its 'bad taste.' Now that you mention it, though, I suppose I could....So is it in bad taste to cover these campaigns?


For me it´s not bad taste. But I´m sure the objective of this scenario is not to see how many civilians you can kill in Stalingrad. If someone made a bombing campaign game, that as an objective was to see how many civilians you can kill in Dresden, London and Tokyo.....that would seem a bit odd to me. I wouldn´t ¨ban¨ such a game, but it would seem...odd.

quote:

You are -- essentially -- taking the position that portraying some forms of mayhem and slaughter is okay, but portraying others is not. Well, others might feel differently, one way or the other.


I think my position is a common sense one. Certainly Colin you can see the difference between a game piece representing an SS unit as a combat unit attempting to capture Minsk being different from an SS game piece for rounding up Poles. Wargames focus on the military aspects of campaigns and wars, not the politics or ideology behind them. As such the symbology in wargames is politically valueless.


I don't think symbology is ever completely valueless. Let's face it: those SS runes just carry a lot more 'kick' than the 7th Cavalry's horse head icon -- and the reason is precisely because of the continued 'value' -- for good or ill -- of that particular symbol.

Anyway, my main point is that where one draws the line in what one can permit oneself to simulate is more or less a matter of individual taste. You have decided that representing one form of violence is okay, but that representing another is not. Others might feel that neither form should be represented. Still others would feel quite comfortable representing either form.
quote:



But all this doesn´t matter as you said you don´t agree with banning historically accurate symbols from wargames...same as me.





No...I merely don't support banning the symbols here. If others feel the need to ban them there, I think that maybe they know themselves what's best for them.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/25/2007 1:14:09 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 69
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 6:33:26 AM   
Adam Rinkleff

 

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline
quote:

As I recall, Mussolini said that with hindsight he would have changed the name of fascism to corporatism.

Furthermore, I seem to recall that Churchill said that had he been Italian, he would have joined the fascist party!

< Message edited by AdamRinkleff -- 11/25/2007 6:34:27 AM >

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 70
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 1:41:11 PM   
Trick37_MatrixForum


Posts: 172
Joined: 8/10/2007
From: My mama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  sstevens06

quote:

ORIGINAL:  17poundr
The Skull symbol of the Totenkopf div, shoudnt be used though (imho)...


The skull & crossbones symbol was certainly not exclusive to the SS "Death's Head" Div. WW1-era German Hussars, WW2 German Army (non-SS) Armored Troops, US Navy Fighter Squadron VF-17 "Jolly Rogers", not to mention pirates throught the ages and a certain shadowy fraternity in a prominent US Ivy League university all use(d) more or less the same symbol...


There's one of these in the air museum at the Willow Grove NAS just a few miles down the road from me!


Ah, yes, the "Jolly Rogers" squadron.  They were featured in the movie "The Final Countdown" in 1979.  Very cool movie.

The sad thing is that the F-14 Tomcat was retired.....   Bad mistake.


_____________________________


(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 71
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 7:42:06 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99


This is very true. I personally don´t see war as a moral activity as all war is immoral in my opinion to one degree or another.



Frankly, I don't know about that. Universal peace, and a world forever without war? No thanks.

WW's 1 and 2 gave the activity a bad name, but if you go back further, you'll find people being considerably less certain in their condemnation of it, and even positive. Moreover, these are people who engaged in the activity -- like Oliver Wendell Holmes, for example. An extreme example would be Theodore Roosevelt, who shouted 'Isn't war magnificent?' to another Roughrider as he charged past him up San Juan Hill. Said Roughrider being mortally wounded, incidentally.

I tend to see our attitude towards war as the inverse of our attitude towards sex. We simplify both. Sex is simply good -- although a lot of us have found that it's a bit more involved than that. Similarly, we say war is simply bad -- but do we really want a world eternally at peace?

Moreover, people vote with their feet, and if you look at what they do, it's quite obvious that whatever we profess, war remains an intensely appealing activity for at least the male half of the species.



_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 72
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 7:49:47 PM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline 		"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it."

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 73
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 8:02:34 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it."


But then, what is your actual experience of it?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 74
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 8:16:53 PM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline 		None.

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 75
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 8:20:47 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

None.


Likewise -- unless participating in an urban riot counts.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 76
RE: SS - 11/25/2007 11:41:15 PM   
Adam Rinkleff

 

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Universal peace, and a world forever without war? No thanks. Do we really want a world eternally at peace?


Um... yes? You've heard of the nuclear weapons, right?


< Message edited by AdamRinkleff -- 11/25/2007 11:43:54 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 77
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 12:26:07 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." -- Albert Einstein

I don't think we need concern ourselves about a "world without war" anytime soon.  Indeed, the more relevant concern might be a "world without peace" for the indefinite future.

_____________________________


(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 78
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 12:31:25 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline 		Peace is so valuable that it's worth fighting for.

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 79
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 1:50:44 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

I don't think symbology is ever completely valueless. Let's face it: those SS runes just carry a lot more 'kick' than the 7th Cavalry's horse head icon -- and the reason is precisely because of the continued 'value' -- for good or ill -- of that particular symbol.


I´d ask some indians first!

No really, I´m sure that´s probably true where your at if you say that. I´d say here 95% of the people wouldn´t have any idea. The Swastika sure but the ¨SS¨ symbol, Hmmmm...I´m sure more would identify that with the rock group ¨Kiss¨ than Hitlers Germany.
-----------------------------------------------------
Winston Smith prepares to throw another piece of history down the ¨memory hole¨...(ref 1984)

EU ban urged on communist symbols.

MEPs say the hammer and sickle is a reminder of a totalitarian regime. Several European Parliament members have urged the EU to match a proposed ban on Nazi signs with one on communist symbols like the hammer and sickle...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4234335.stm

Next will be the Confederate flag, then the Christain Crusader Cross, then the...., then the...., then the...on and on.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 80
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 3:11:02 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." -- Albert Einstein

I don't think we need concern ourselves about a "world without war" anytime soon. Indeed, the more relevant concern might be a "world without peace" for the indefinite future.


Well, it could be argued that a 'world without peace' is the human norm. Neolithic tribes are usually in a state of more or less constant -- but very low-level -- warfare with their neighbors. The most extreme example would be the New Guinea tribes that get together once a year and chuck spears at each other across a meadow until someone gets seriously hurt or killed. Then that's it for that year's war.

The pattern continues, through the habitual warfare of the Middle Ages and into the dynastic wars of the Nineteenth century. Frequent, but not especially intense. Even in the Napoleonic and American Civil Wars, the average soldier might see three days of serious fighting in a year of 'war.'

Then we get the modern era, with World Wars One and Two. Cataclysmic outbreaks of virtually uninterrupted violence, followed by universal agreement that war is a bad thing. Try drinking a quart of gin in one sitting. The next morning you'll have similar sentiments about alcohol.

Maybe we'll go back to a more traditional, human norm. Sort of urban gang warfare on a national level. It's worth noting, by the way, that that's one reason gang violence is so hard to stamp out. It's a perfectly normal activity for young males. See also the traditional G-8 uproar. Whatever the ideological motives of the participants, both the energy of their protest and the from it often takes obviously owe a lot to a native human impulse towards violence as a group activity.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/26/2007 3:23:07 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 81
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 3:29:27 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Colin,

I'm more concerned about the extinction of the species and the implications of what Einstein said. 

It's one thing to talk about constant violence using sticks and stones, and quite another to talk about constant violence using weaponized anthrax and weaponized VX gas and depleted uranium and nuclear bombs.

And when extremists get their hands on the "fruits" of our technological progress, then what Einstein said becomes far more disconcerting.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 82
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 3:30:18 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

I don't think symbology is ever completely valueless. Let's face it: those SS runes just carry a lot more 'kick' than the 7th Cavalry's horse head icon -- and the reason is precisely because of the continued 'value' -- for good or ill -- of that particular symbol.


I´d ask some indians first!

No really, I´m sure that´s probably true where your at if you say that. I´d say here 95% of the people wouldn´t have any idea. The Swastika sure but the ¨SS¨ symbol, Hmmmm...I´m sure more would identify that with the rock group ¨Kiss¨ than Hitlers Germany.
-----------------------------------------------------
Winston Smith prepares to throw another piece of history down the ¨memory hole¨...(ref 1984)

EU ban urged on communist symbols.

MEPs say the hammer and sickle is a reminder of a totalitarian regime. Several European Parliament members have urged the EU to match a proposed ban on Nazi signs with one on communist symbols like the hammer and sickle...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4234335.stm

Next will be the Confederate flag, then the Christain Crusader Cross, then the...., then the...., then the...on and on.


The whole impulse is nicely satirized in Ursula LeGuin's science fiction novel The Lathe of Heaven.

Briefly, a young man is troubled by his dreams. He dreams things that turn out to be true when he awakes -- but they weren't that way until he dreamed them. He goes to see a psychiatrist, who eventually realizes that this is really happening. If the guy dreams something to be so, it becomes so.

So he conceives the brilliant idea of directing the guy's dreams. First try is to make a world without racial strife. Viola -- everyone is this gray color.

Okay -- not so hot, but onward. Mankind is united.

We're united because the aliens have landed on the moon.

Doctor panics. Get the aliens off the moon!

They are off the moon. They've landed on the earth.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 83
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 3:32:28 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

quote:

Universal peace, and a world forever without war? No thanks. Do we really want a world eternally at peace?


Um... yes? You've heard of the nuclear weapons, right?



Well -- perhaps violent protests or gang warfare could provide an adequate substitute. Your choice would depend on your socio-economic background.

In this connection, it occurs to me that the rise in the popularity and extravagance of gladitorial games in ancient Rome might have been a response to the absence of warfare in Rome's immediate environs. I mean, Rome was still often at war, but for the average Roman citizen, it was no longer a matter of going off and having a go at the Sabines every fall.

Colonial wars? Are we really in Iraq and Afghanistan for the reasons we think we are? After all, we picked two areas that are guaranteed never to be pacific. Our support for Israel also suggests a desire for an assured source of continued strife and conflict.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/26/2007 3:39:36 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 84
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 3:42:33 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

I'm more concerned about the extinction of the species and the implications of what Einstein said.

It's one thing to talk about constant violence using sticks and stones, and quite another to talk about constant violence using weaponized anthrax and weaponized VX gas and depleted uranium and nuclear bombs...


Happily, the extensive use of any such weapons will lead to such a sharp decline in both the numbers and the techmological abilities of the survivors that the danger will evaporate of it's own accord. Not one of the sixty thousand survivors will be anywheres near able to make an atom bomb.

And as long as total extinction doesn't occur, what's the problem? After all, everyone dies. It's just a question of when.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 85
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 8:24:14 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Moreover, people vote with their feet, and if you look at what they do, it's quite obvious that whatever we profess, war remains an intensely appealing activity for at least the male half of the species.


I´m not so sure males are attracted to the war side of things with the military. I think what attracts them is the sence of comradery and sence of purpose. Perhaps even the discipline side of it too.

When it comes to the actual killing other people side of things I´m not so sure their is an attraction to that. It is one thing to get angry in a fit of rage and kill someone. Quite another to go about and kill strangers in a methodical manner as in war.

IIRC there was a study of WW2 soldiers that showed most soldiers didn´t fire their weapons. That there was an aversion to actually shooting at other people. So the drill targets were changed to resemble a human being after the war.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 86
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 1:39:25 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I'm more concerned about the extinction of the species


Human beings are remarkbly adaptable. You might be able to kill 99.999% of us- but that still leaves 60,000. A good, viable population- and with good rates of growth we'd be back where we are in a thousand years.

Obviously, the intervening period would be pretty unpleasant, but I don't think we're capable of exterminating ourselves.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 87
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 1:48:05 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I´m not so sure males are attracted to the war side of things with the military. I think what attracts them is the sence of comradery and sence of purpose. Perhaps even the discipline side of it too.


We do start to feel queezy when it comes to pulling the trigger- but almost every male when looking at a weapon will feel a certain sense of excitement and an urge to take it down and have a go. Killing? Maybe not. But being there where the action is? Where do I sign?

quote:

IIRC there was a study of WW2 soldiers that showed most soldiers didn´t fire their weapons.


That's an exaggeration. About one in five didn't fire. One in five did exactly what they were supposed to. The other three fell somewhere in between.

I would say this has more to do with not being able to act in an organised manner while under fire than deliberate avoiding killing.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 88
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 4:40:29 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		LOL.  You are funny.  "A good viable population of 60,000." 

Perhaps.  But not so good for the 6,499,940,000 who got rubbed out.

And all of the former "garden spots" on the planet will be radioactive wastelands.

And for the 60,000 survivors, they might be so scattered all over the world that a secure genetic future for the species would be quite problematic indeed (to say nothing of radiological mutations).  I'll put my money on the rats and cockroaches and flies.

This is not the sort of future that I dream about for my children and grandchildren.

_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 89
RE: SS - 11/26/2007 5:09:24 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

And for the 60,000 survivors, they might be so scattered all over the world that a secure genetic future for the species would be quite problematic indeed (to say nothing of radiological mutations).  I'll put my money on the rats and cockroaches and flies.


I'd say we'll survive- but it certainly won't be pretty. In a nuclear situation, you'll have island populations which are so remote as to have not been affected by blast at all and which will avoid the immediate fallout (and long-term fallout is not as severe a problem as widely held). Add a hundred here and there in government shelters (though these will be unbalanced populations as they are intended to protect the leadership rather than carry on the species), and countless individuals and families with less well-prepared shelters.

quote:

This is not the sort of future that I dream about for my children and grandchildren.


Fair enough. But I think surviving as a species is better than nothing.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 11/26/2007 5:11:21 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: SS Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.111