When does something become history and not "too political"?

[Neilster]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while with regard to this forum. When does some historical event become sufficiently in the past to be discussed here without it being "too political"? Surely there must be a time.

I'm thinking about things like the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Saying that that is too political to discuss now is like saying the Second World War is too political to discuss in 1962.

[bairdlander2]

As I recall back when first joining the forums during the Iraq conflict any anti war or questioning the WMD was forbidden.I think it depends on whatever mood the moderator is in and who the moderator is.

[warspite1]

I think there are always grey areas the closer we come to modern times - but time is not the only factor.

Discussing the military aspects of the Iraq War isn't political now, just as discussing the military aspects of WWII wouldn't have been an issue in 1962.

But bringing up, for example, the reasons for going to war in Iraq is always likely to turn political and many of those responsible for decisions made at the time are still alive, and the issue remains contentious.

Bringing up the reasons for going to war in 1939 was recently discussed extensively in a thread on this forum. There is no thought that that was political, so why the difference, and would it have been different in 1962?

I guess its possible that discussing that aspect in 1962 could have been deemed political - after all many of those involved (certainly at a more junior level) were still alive but there are probably a number of things that make it less likely to have been an issue even then. The very the nature of the war is important - the knowledge of the Holocaust and the hideousness of the regime - make WWII a just war if ever there was one. But on the other hand maybe the subject of area bombing or the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man would have been considered political in 1962 - especially at the height of the Cold War.

I think that the grey areas, that will always exist in life, just means we have to use common sense. I don't think there is a hard and fast arbitrary date cut-off that can be applied.


EDIT: And for the avoidance of doubt I used the examples above to try and explain my thinking in answer to the OP - not to start a debate on any of those topics! [:)]

[tevans]

That's a good question. If you think about it these war and strategy games we play are pretty much all based on real life events. War in one sense is an extension of politics. How do you discuss WW II and Hitler without being political? How do you discuss the ACW and slavery without being political? I understand not attacking current political leaders or expressing political viewpoints. But it's pretty difficult to discuss war, strategy and history where it pertains to gaming without getting into the politics of it.

[tevans]

One other thing I thought about are the modern scenarios for different Matrix games taken straight out of the headlines. Wouldn't they be considered political in nature? CMANO DLC had a North Korea scenario and if I'm not mistaken a scenario about current events in Syria. There's scenarios regarding conflict with China and Iran. How do you discuss those scenarios without getting into the political aspects? Like I said I can understand forbidding attacks on political leaders and political parties. I understand forbidding the expression of political viewpoints. But how do you play an Iraq scenario in CMANO or TOAW IV without discussing WMD's? War is an extension of politics. Clausewitz said that and it holds just as true today as it did when he wrote it.

[rico21]

If you are ready to go to war over a past event it is political. If you are not ready[>:] this is history.
Rico.[:D]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
This is something I've been thinking about for a while with regard to this forum. When does some historical event become sufficiently in the past to be discussed here without it being "too political"? Surely there must be a time.

I'm thinking about things like the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Saying that that is too political to discuss now is like saying the Second World War is too political to discuss in 1962.

A lot comes down to how it's discussed. I think it's completely non-controversial to discuss the military history of the war. The political history of the Iraq War, if discussed only as needed for military history purposes and without attempting to link it to other political events or pass judgements on political figures, could also be discussed neutrally by the vast majority I would think. However, a discussion that focuses on the war and its effects as a political event and focuses on the political figures involved and their judgements would almost certainly end up crossing the no politics line.

[Lobster]

How a recent military campaign is carried out could be separated from why a recent military campaign is carried out. How the war against Iraq was carried out in 2003 could be discussed without bothering with the why. The same holds true for almost any modern campaign. I guess you might view it as a military leader with orders and not as a politician with an agenda.

[MrsWargamer]

Context, always context.

Civil War can become quite modern political in a heartbeat, as can anything 1940s.

I find that it is regionally based. Hard for us here in North America to get as worked up by something only relevant to the other side of the world, unless enough members of the forum are present from that location. Plus there is a language barrier. We tend to be an English speaking forum. Which likely explains why I know so much less about matters from countries that are not quite as fluent in English.

I've interacted with people in person though, from places I normally never would interact with online. and it shows I know little of where they are from.

[Lobster]

Even the invasion of Poland can be approached from a political/religious angle if it is taken in it's entirety, from the 17th century to it's conclusion in 1939. Fortunately people focus on the military aspect beginning with the corridor ultimatum.

[ncc1701e]

When I see the political context of some DLCs of CMANO, now CMO, aren't they near the limit?

[gamer78]

I can say II. Abdülhamid vs M.Kemal discussion was fired by political elite in the last 20 years in Turkey. Those leaders were 100 years ago. But still there are monarchists. And any game forum I moderated in Turkey I come up with political discussion in games last years.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

When I see the political context of some DLCs of CMANO, now CMO, aren't they near the limit?

As a for instance Spratly Spat lays out the background of the political situation in the area. Then it goes into the military possibilities resulting from the political situation. Likely we could argue about the military situation or possibilities. But if we got into ideologies of either side it might ring alarm bells.

[Hellen_slith]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

This is something I've been thinking about for a while with regard to this forum. When does some historical event become sufficiently in the past to be discussed here without it being "too political"? Surely there must be a time.

I'm thinking about things like the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Saying that that is too political to discuss now is like saying the Second World War is too political to discuss in 1962.

The Ethics of Wargaming

I was led to reflect upon the "ethics" of wargaming when we began to discuss the intersection of
politics and current events with our favorite hobby. I, for one, almost never think of that when I am playing
a move in a WWI scene, or Barbarossa, or The Next War (1979) or even in modern conflict simulation
(like, perhaps, Syria or Mogadishu).

But, I find myself often thinking of the politics and views behind a scene (in a historical context) ...
whether
from the standpoint of Upton Sinclair's "Lanny Budd" series, or from Nazi apologetics (I forget
that university study about that at the moment), or from the take of all the many reviews of Korea,
Viet Nam, and so forth.

My personal hobbyhorse is the Holocaust, and that can be completely another can of worms
but it does chaff a bit in the back of my mind, that our WWII Barbarossa scenes, by and large, do not
take that aspect of Barbarossa into account (except, maybe, by house rule in, say, TOAWIV FitE2).

My point here is, that whether you are playing WWI Germans, or WWII Soviets, or Chinese Communist in Korea,
or WHICHEVER side you are playing, that there are politics at work in the background ... unless you are playing
simply ground rules, to shoot the other guy. And that is a bit boring: the politics of a scene are as essential
as are the ground units.

To sum up my rambling thought: I think the distinction needs to be made between:
(a) discussing the political milieu of a scenario of a game, and
(b) discussing the pure politics of a current political event.

There are plenty of other forums "out there" for (b).

Here, I am glad that Matrix has made space for only (a)

Have a great gaming day!!!!!!

[gamer78]

Well this design is purely terrorist according to Turkish authorities. Telling about Kurdish Peşmerge.

'August 1979 - Siege of Mahabad. Assault on city (F-4's + tanks + artillery)

October 1979 - Kursdish Peshmerga return to Mahabad and engage in street fighting (RPG's and Molotov's) against mechanized garrison.

May 1980 - Mechanized Divisions seizing many large cities (Sanandaj, Pawe, Marivan) in coordinated assault. Many villages/suburbs destroyed. Kurdish Peshmerga held out in Mahabad.

August 1980 - Failed assault on Mahabad. [/quote]
[/quote]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=
I don't know what is political in US terms. Maybe black situation?

[Hellen_slith]

There is a distinction to be made between military action
and purely political action.

I don't like the Kurdish situation any more than you do.
BUT, in a GAMING forum, which is devoted to CONFLICT SIMULATION,
you just have to leave aside sometimes, your rightful fury.

There are other forums out there that discuss the Turks / Kurds situation in current political milieu.

I hope that that makes sense.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gamer78

'August 1979 - Siege of Mahabad. Assault on city (F-4's + tanks + artillery)

October 1979 - Kursdish Peshmerga return to Mahabad and engage in street fighting (RPG's and Molotov's) against mechanized garrison.

May 1980 - Mechanized Divisions seizing many large cities (Sanandaj, Pawe, Marivan) in coordinated assault. Many villages/suburbs destroyed. Kurdish Peshmerga held out in Mahabad.

August 1980 - Failed assault on Mahabad.

Military operations all.

ORIGINAL: gamer78

I don't know what is political in US terms. Maybe black situation?

Clearly political and you obviously know it. [:'(]

Likely an attempt by you to get the thread locked.

[ncc1701e]

On War by Carl von Clausewitz: “War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.”

[TheGrayMouser]

You know it’s become political when the conversation begins to sound like Sam Kinison and Rodney Dangerfield In “Back To School”.

[robert110]

History has always been a tough subject to me for the Write my essay UK, There were many flaws back then in the strategies and complicated connections.