SS

[desert]

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.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

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.

[Ike99]

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.[:D]

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.

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.

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.

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...

[sstevens06]

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!

[ColinWright]

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.

[ColinWright]

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.

[Silvanski]

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...

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.

[Ike99]

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.[:D]

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.

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.

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.[;)]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

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.[:D]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Adam Rinkleff]

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!

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL:  sstevens06

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. [:-]
 

[ColinWright]

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.

[desert]

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

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

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

But then, what is your actual experience of it?

[desert]

None. [:)]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

None. [:)]

Likewise -- unless participating in an urban riot counts.

[Adam Rinkleff]

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?

[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.

[desert]

Peace is so valuable that it's worth fighting for.[:D]

[Ike99]

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! [:D][:D]

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.