sogard

Brian Rock wrote: "I don't think anybody has argued that they want "the nations in the game [to] bear no resemblance to their historical counterparts". I think the disagreements are over where to draw the boundaries." That is not an unfair comment Brian. It is also true that some gamers do not value historical accuracy regarding economic and military details as long as they get a challenging and entertaining game. As long as the company marketing the game and the designer are up front about what they are modeling, I have no problem with that. SPI (the now defunct, but important publisher of wargames) had a game called DIXIE which was set in an alternate time line where the South had won the civil war. It was an amusing little game and fun to play at the time. The designer made no pretense about the factual accuracy of the game. However, if you produced a game on the American Civil War and that game showed the South as being more powerfull and capable than the North; it would not only be fair to comment on this distortion of history, but, it would actually invite such comment. [ September 24, 2002, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

It is obvious that you are a child. I can not believe that you attend a serious University. In the normal class room exchange, comments would be much stronger than anything I have said or that you have inferred from what I have written. I take it you must be a Freshman and are unused to upper level course work. The marketplace of ideas is not about everyone agreeing about a subject; but, about a civil discourse where strong opinions can be discussed. You don't think it is understandable to see someone who posts with a tag line praising an SS man and then demands that a serious game about WW II look like a Nazi dream would cause some comment? You say that all you are is a WW II buff. I could accept that; but, then you jump to the conclusion that because I am critical of designing a game where the great super power in the world is Nazi Germany it is not fair to ask why one would do this particularily with your chosen tag line (given the facts about WW II where Nazi Germany was not the great super power). If you dispute this fact, then post your sources. Tell me how you are correct that Nazi Germany had an economy as demonstrated in STRATEGIC COMMAND as it is now constituted. Then, in the finest right wing tradition, you demand that any comment, of which you don't approve, be censored. What sort of proud American tradition is that? What kind of academic community do you belong to? In the law, we have a saying that: When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. And, when you have neither the law or the facts on your side, claim that the other side has slurred your personal integrity. That is exactly what you are doing. It is clear to me that you are NOT used to engaging in serious adult conversations. You want to silence your opponant instead of win your argument on the basis of the merit of your case. I was not inferring that you were some neo-Nazi skin head; but, I asure you that if you had your tag line and made the kind of comments you have here; on a serious WW II history forum -- you would have invited alot of very unfavorable comment. My hobby, the playing of games based upon military history, has dealt with the issue of the overweaning fawning for Nazis for some time. Ever since the famous Richard Berg pieces in MOVES magazine where he attacked game designers who make "Nato, Nukes and Nazis" games which pander to right wing neo-Nazi sentiments. The fact that you are unaware of this or HOW offensive your tag line and position against free and unfettered speech is simply says that you are young and unused to adult speech. I suggest that you stay out of the kitchen if you can not stand the heat (another great American, Harry Truman said that). As Harry used to say when folks in the crowd used to cry "Give Em Hell Harry," Truman would respond that all he was doing was telling the truth; but, it must seem like hell to those on the receiving end.

Well, one might ask what is the point of calling STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) a WW II Grand Strategy game which is illustrated with pictures of WW II and then demanding that the actual strength of the nations in the game bear no resemblance to their historical counterparts? If SC were simply titled a grand strategy game (like say RISK or even Sid Meir's CIVILIZATION) I would have no problem with exactly what you said. But, SC has been billed and desribes itself quite differently. What you seem to want is a game which has no basis in reality; but, is cool to play. This is really a silly argument. The choices the game will present will still be real. The player will be able to choose to build more of one type of unit than their historical counterpart or build them sooner; but, the constraint is that one can not completely ignore the laws of supply and demand and create a fantasy game. There is no way in hell that Germany could build or fuel twenty Air Fleets or Panzer Armies for that matter during this period. You want to be able to build all of the units of your choice you want even though doing so makes a farce of the game. This would be fine except you want to do this with a WW II grand strategy wargame. Why? What difference does it make other than on the subject of cool game play. However, the game is suppose to be based upon WW II. Why would you say that in the advertising (just take a look at the banner on this site advertising the game) if what you really meant that this was suppose to be a game where the Nazis overrun the world and you get to be the grand Obengruppenfuhrer of this? The problem is that you want to have it both way. You want the cool SS Black uniforms, the goose stepping soldiers and the stukas; but, you don't want what the game represents to bear any resemblance to the history on which it was based. So the solution to the fact that you have a very bad game called STORM ACROSS EUROPE is to create an even equally silly game (which masqueredes as the ultimate WW II strategy game") where the SS goose steps across Europe singing "Springtime For Hitler?" SC ought to be what it says it is. If you want a cool strategic level wargame which has no basis in any historic period; that is fine. But, SC claims to be something else. Otherwise you might as well bill SC as an inaccurate and pretentious strategic level wargame that will appeal to folks who think the Nazis came up with cool uniforms. [ September 24, 2002, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Bruce70 writes: "It really sounds like you should go back to your books, you clearly are only interested in history and not in game playing." Just so it is clear; this is not true. I have been playing board games since 1969. I have watched the hobby ebb and flow over the years and have played alot of different war games over the years. I still regularily play WORLD IN FLAMES with a regular gaming group. (I am currently beta testing the computer version of WORLD IN FLAMES as I playtested earlier versions of the board game.) WORLD IN FLAMES is a game which has developed over the past 20 years. It has had to deal with many of the issues and design decisions which SC is grappling with now. The idea of how to create a strategic level WW II game which is moderately based on the real world in not new. But, I play these games because I enjoy the competitive and intellectual nature of them. I was initially impressed with STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) because it does so many things right which have never come together quite so well in a previous computer game. What is somewhat frustrating is how close SC is to being a really good wargame for its complexity and scale. However, SC does need to decide what it wants to be. There are a number of computer games out there that make no attempt at any form of real world or historical accuracy. SC's design could do a much better job of reflecting these real world concerns it that is where the game design is directed.

When a game designer is designing a game system, he can put as many criteria into the process that let's you create new units as he likes. What we have in STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is a design model which only has one regulating factor: how many MPPs (Military Production Points) do you have. The problem with this is that the economic model which produces MPPs is very simple and ignores alot of elementary economic realities (like the law of supply and demand). One way to increase realism is to factor in one or more additional criteria into your production model in order to create new units. Each element that you add to this design model will permit the designer to more carefully craft what is permitted in the game. As long as SC continues to use only "if you have the cash" you can build the unit model, the game is going to very quickly get out of whack in any meaningful real world sense. Take a look at the scenarios designed for historic start points included in the game. Has anyone ever played a campaign game where they have ever seen anything that looks like any of the historical later start scenarios? Shouldn't that tell us something? Finally, I am sorry if some here take offense at my being direct and pointing out what I see as real world problems with how the game works. I am accustomed to dealing with honest and frank criticisim, without taking offense, through a peer review process. No personal offense is intended; but, it is better to make one's point directly and honestly (especially when basic Economic 101 principles are being ignored) than trying to sugar coat it. I assume that anyone who has a real interest in SC also has some interest in an honest historical appraisal of the game. [ September 23, 2002, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I have seen this sentiment expressed many time on this board by gamers who want no restrictions placed upon them by the game design. (Not to pick on Esquire; but just using his post as a starting point.) The amusing thing about this argument that the outcome of WW II was forordained from the start is that I can not think of a major military historian who would agree with it. I repeat, the outcome of WW II was not foreordained. Contrary to this, Germany came much closer to winning the war in 1941 than many here seem to understand. It is the same old mistake of looking back at historical outcomes as inevitable. Any study of history will dispell this myth. Many events which have occured in history were rather improbable when they occured and once a gamer appreciates this; many more options open to the gamer might become more attractive. [ September 24, 2002, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

What is your source for this assertion? Any examples of the Nelson, Rodney or even a WW I battleship being scrapped to produce anything?

Bruce70 writes: "Using a combination of population and history is fine for armies and corps but not for air and armour. The player must be able to choose to build more (abstract) aircraft factories at the expense of armour factories. Or allocate more fuel for armoured units than air units than was historically the case." So, what you are saying, flying in the face of historical experience and principles of economics is that in the period 1939 - 1946, it would have been possible for Germany to produce an unlimited number of tanks and airplanes along with finding the trained crews to man them. I find this notion completely unconvincing. Only a computer gamer who wants to have unlimited flexibility and cares not a fig for real world concerns could make this argument. (note: I am not picking on Bruce. He is making a point; but, I simply do not know what else to say with a notion which would earn an "F" grade in both a history and economics course. Of course, maybe we don't want any of that fancy book learning around here.) Quite simply, there were real limits imposed upon what Germany could do. How do I know this? Because the Germans tried to live in this fantasy universe in the real World War II and even Speer could not meet the expectations of those who cry for unlimited numbers of units. Bruce70 continued: "And as pointed out by others the resources available may not be the same as was historically the case depending on those captured/lost." And where would these resources, trained manpower and factories be? This is not a STAR TREK universe where some space ship could beam all this stuff down. I take it you have never read much about the economics of WW II. Germany's problem was that she was very limited in her ultimate production of sophisticated weapons. She had a very limited ability to produce motor vehicles (why the German Army was still mostly horse drawn even at the height of her powers). Yet this basic economic truth is being shrugged off like the advocate for the unlimited unit limits is talking to their Fuhrer and no one is actually checking the facts. The only nation that even came close to being able to build unlimited units was the United States and that was because by 1944, over half the productive capacity on the planet was found in the United States. This information is not new. It has been known and written about ever since the end of WW II and historians and economists went about trying to explain what happened in real life. Bruce70 ended with: "A hard limit on anything but armies and corps would be completely unsatisfactory IMO" Only if you want to insist that you can do anything you want in STRATEGIC COMMAND. This is such basic economic stuff that it does not pass the smell test. SC is a game which uses a very simple and abstracted economic model to drive the game. Gamers, as is their want, desire to exploit this even though it makes SC even less realistic than AXIS AND ALLIES (at least in AXIS AND ALLIES, there is a limit to the poker chips provided). If you submitted the idea of unlimited unit production in any economics course, you would get an F for your trouble. There are many fantasy computer games available, what really mystifies me is why gamers want to make another piece of fluff out of SC. This is especially so when SC could provide a great deal of good information about what WW II looked like on a strategic level. You might as well provide Dragon units for players to build. That would certainly make the fantasy crowd happy and one might sell a few games to them. (Ah yes, time to move the Godzilla unit to Paris.) At present, I could not recommend SC as a game to a serious historical gamer. They would simply be appalled. I would hate to see a review of SC on a serious wargaming forum. SC is an amusing and fun game (Hubert is to be commended for creating a very nice game engine) and that seems to be all that many around here want. I don't see why a map of Europe is used in the present game, why any historical names are used or, for that matter, why the graphics of the game shows goose stepping German soldiers. Of course, it could be the old dictum that a game that includes any of the following three items: Nato, Nukes and Nazis will sell to the ignorant massess. However, I thought P.T. Barnum only said that no one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public. [ September 23, 2002, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Using population size as the sole determinant as to the number of units permitted to each nation would not yield a particularily accurate number. Why not use history as a guide? The various nations sure were trying to maximize their production and Armed Forces. What makes you think that the average gamer should assume the role of super manager and do much better? We all like to think that we would be a Speer and increase production by four fold; but, history is also full of those who failed completely. It may increase the size of our egos; but, I don't think that there are that many economic geniuses out there and that is what the gamer wants, it seems. The gamer wants his ego stroked regardless of how silly that looks by any objective criteria. Sorta like the old Saturday Night Live question of "would Custer have won the battle of Little BigHorn if he would have had a B-52?" Lotta folks around here seem to want their B-52s at any cost. [ September 22, 2002, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I thought it was interesting that the User's Manual says the following about unit disbanding and the resulting crediting of MPPs to the owning nations bank account: "DISBANDING A UNIT Units were often disbanded when they were no longer deemed necessary and military funds would be better allocated to other areas. Any unit that is disbanded results in the immediate recovery of MPP, and is based upon a unit™s supply Recovered MPP = 5% unit™s cost * greatest value of unit™s supply or strength To avoid abuse of the disband feature, only land and air units can be disbanded and they must have a supply value > 0 and no enemy units next to them. In order to disband a unit, right click on the unit and select Disband from the drop down menu." However, in a current pbem game with Iolo, I discovered that he had been disbanding naval units and getting MPPs for them (resulting in a different Allied Order of Battle and research capability). Iolo directed me to the patch history and sure enough, I found: Changes Made For v1.01a (July 25th 2002) - added disbanding of naval units (max return 10% of purchase value) I am rather curious about this change. Why was it done? How do other players feel about the fact that the game permits players to significantly change the Order of Battle for both sides? Is this a good thing? I must admit that one of the things that attracted me to STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) was the fact that the early part of the game made alot of sense in a historical fashion. However, would Churchill have scrapped significant elements of the Royal Navy to pursue Jet research or produce additional aircraft for the Royal Air Force? I am still mulling this part of the game over and have not reached a final conclusion. I can see that gamers who don't care much about history or realism would love the fact that they can tailor their Armed Forces more toward the specific threats contained in the game; but, I am just not sure that I want that kind of flexibility in a WW II strategic level wargame. Anyway, I would appreciate other's thoughts on this subject and maybe Hubert would like to chime in and give us his design philosophy which resulted in this change in the game from the User's Manual to a patch upgrade. [ September 22, 2002, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

DevilDog wrote: "I guess what I'm trying to say is: if you don't want your opponent to have 15 air fleets then don't let him build them. If you get board playing against someone who lets YOU build 15 air fleets then play against a better opponent." Well, I have been playtesting STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) for the past three weeks with alot of hotseat play and more recently with pbem play to find opponants who are not doing "what is expected" by someone familiar with my play style or me with one of my regular hotseat opponants. So far, I don't see much difference in what the end game boiled down to by 1942. There are little tricks and opportunities to be exploited that maybe the average gamer had not thought through; but, with that caveat, the middle to end games end up basically in the same pattern. I would love to be proved wrong about this; that through superior play one could prevent the way the game design pushes matters into a very ahistorical and unreal end; but, so far, I have not seen that. Don't get me wrong though, I think SC is alot of fun to play even as it is; but, I purchased SC to get a strategic WW II game. If I wanted some sort of alternate reality or fantasy game, I could go out and get all sorts of pretty eye candy on the market. The niche I think that SC can profitably fill is one where a more serious historical game is desired. At the moment, some more tweaking needs to be done; but, Hubert has created a fine game which I think could do a pretty good job of meeting that historical game void. I do believe that SC can be just as good in the middle to end game as it is in the first two years of the game. [ September 21, 2002, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I agree with you that it would be more historical and it would certainly be more realistic because the kind of military force you could build would reflect what was really possible. And that is exactly what I have a problem with. Many peoiple in this thread and others says they want a more historical SC. Well I don't. I already know how World War 2 ended. I think that would make for a truely boring game. Who wants to start the game knowing that Germany has no chance to win? What's the point of playing? To some extent the game has to be unhistorically and unrealistically balanced to provide for good game play.

I am already looking at this because I am curious as to what the actual numbers are. There are also a number of games that have had to tackle the question, in setting up an order of battle, of just how many Armies, Corps, Air Fleets etc. were actually created by the various powers. If Hubert is reading this, is there any chance that unit limits might be incorporated into SC? I agree with your your current priority of getting tcp/ip implemented; but, I can dream of what might be. [ September 21, 2002, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

My thought on proposing the notion of limits on the total number of any type of unit in the game was to seek a solution for the current version of STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) which made the game somewhat more realistic and which did not require a complete overhaul of the game design. It seemed to me that this was something that could be implemented either by Hubert or modifying the Scenario Editor and permit players to do it themselves. Thus, SC could be a more realistic WW II grand strategy game. I understand that there are those who don't care much about realism and much prefer to see the end game full of cool jet sounds and the great massed Air Fleets of the Luftwaffe zipping here and there; but, quite frankly, this drops my interest considerably after the opening of the game presents some interesting choices in what kind of strategy one wants to pursue. I don't even see the Air Power guys at the Air Force Acadamy seeing what typically comes up in the 1943 - 1946 period in the game as being remotely realistic. So, why not do something about it? I don't have a problem with fixing the number of units at the historical max plus say 25% (or you pick the magic number). I will grant you that it is going to be arbitrary; but, one of the great lessons about military history is that everything has its limits. No one nation could have fielded twenty Air Fleets or twenty Tank Armies in the European Theater. This is especially true of Germany (which is what we are really talking about here). The game, as it is presently designed, is really the Third Reich's dream. The game directs events down the course where Speer gets everything right, all the "wonder weapons" work as advertised and Germany has no fuel problems at all (even before Germany has access to the oil from the either Russia or the Middle East). That describes a situation which is completely unreal. Why not improve the realism with this simple fix or at least permit the game to be modified so that if you want it more realistic, you can play it that way? I may be underestimating what it would take in effort by Hubert to make this fix; but, assuming that it is possible, I think it would be well worth his effort. [ September 20, 2002, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I disagree with you in one respect Bruce and that is the effect of simply imposing a unit limit on some or all units. What this does is prevent the current game economics from totally getting out of whack because you can set the individual unit numbers on a known historical maximum. Thus, the maximum number of Air Fleets Germany can ever possess is fixed to the largest number they ever actually fielded. This means that even if you have the money; you can not build an ahistorical force (such as a 15 Air Fleet Luftwaffe). There are some very concrete real world reasons for this limit. The first is that production constraints, manpower, lack of strategic resources and fuel dictated that there limits on what any nation (including the United States) could ever put into the field. In essence, the game should have a maximum order of battle for each nation. What I do not know is whether or not Germany should be given a significant experience bonus with her "at start" forces. The game starts with Germany mainly using a quantitative edge to take out France; but, I think the qualitative edge the Germans possessed in tactics and leadership was equally, if not more so, important. I think that STRATEGIC COMMAND can represent this at start because this sort of scenario can give them units which have a qualitative edge that is not built into the game at present. I really wish the Scenario Editor permitted the gamer to play with this; but, after taking a look at it last night, it appeared to me that not only the basic game economics; but also, the quantity and type of units available are not changeable with the Scenario Editor. If the Scenario Editor permitted more flexibility (like letting the player do to other units what the game already does for HQs), one would truly have a great game where the gamer could experiment with crafting the most accurate scenario possible. I have no idea if these kind of features can be built into the Scenario Editor; but, I really wish Hubert would consider it (after tcp/ip implementation). It is amusing to move or watch your opponant move massiver German Air Fleets around the map; but, I have trouble imagining how this was ever possible and therefore, the fact that the number of Air Fleets is unlimited spoils some of the fun of the game. It remains a good game yet loses alot of the game's historical appeal which had been supported by the nice maps, photos and unit icons. [ September 20, 2002, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I have been playing STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) over the past couple of days and thinking about what could make the game bit more realistic. The more that I have thought about it; the more it seems obvious to me that regardless of how strong the economies are of the various countries (and let's face it folks, the Brits and the USA are being significantly underrepresented -- in the later stages of the war, the Western Allies are a mere fraction of their historic strengths relative to Germany), a major realism flaw with the game as presently structured is that there is only one unit which is limited in the game and that is the Headquarters. However, since Headquarters are limited, why not limit the number of units permitted in the other various unit types? If Hubert feels that he needs the present economic model in order to have a balanced game, then keep it. But, please, lets also get rid of the notion that the Germans could have built fifteen to twenty air fleets; much less fueled them. What this is going to do is to make the end game of SC maintain a bit more realism and it would also give the Allies an advantage in overall units if they can afford to build them. As I suggested earlier, some units could remain an unlimited build unit (like the Corps); but, this would reign in the alternate universe where the Germans are fielding air forces of 15+ air fleets. Again, this solution means that one would not have to fiddle with the research aspect of the game (other than adjust the starting tech levels where appropriate). It might also be appropriate to give the Germans some experience at start to reflect that the German Army, better than its adversaries, had a sense of how much had changed with warfare since the 1914 - 1920 experience. Anyone else have any ideas along this line?

I think STRATEGIC COMMAND's (SC) biggest draw for me is the fact that it is a good game at its center. What the term "good game" means to you may be somewhat different than my criteria; but, I like SC because it has a recognizeable historic flavor (although I wish the game better represented the real power relationships between the Major Countries) and it is a competitive game which uses fairly simple and intuitive game concepts. The game operates in a fashion that makes sense. Thus one, especially in the early portion of the game (1939 - 1941), can get a great deal of enjoyment out of the WW II experience. I would even consider SC's basic design as rather elegant for how much it packs in its apparant simplicity. I am still playing the game regularily and enjoying it.

I have been reading all the threads on proposed house rules, the threads that one side or the other has the advantage in the current version of the game and the observation that the historic economic advantage of the Allies is missing in the game. First, let me say that I think that Hubert has done a remarkable job in creating STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) as it is. A good game, especially a computer game that does not rely on graphic effects, is something very difficult. Hubert has certainly passed this test with flying colors. The question remains though whether a game which starts off on a reasonably historic track can be made to better reflect the historic realities without major changes. Something which occured to me, which may have been discussed earlier, is to consider using a limitation on the number of units each player may either build in the game or have in the game at any given time. The game already does this with Headquarter (HQ) units. Each power can only build a certain number of HQs in the game and once they have been destroyed; they can not be rebuilt. Why not apply this same principle to the other units in the game? If you limit the total number of Air Fleets which can be present in the game of each nation, this can/will prevent a vision of an Eastern Front dominated by Corps but driven by vast Air Forces (mostly German in my recent games). One could even permit some units to continue to have unlimited numbers in the game (say permit unlimited numbers of Corps; but restrict the total number of Armies). A number of current strategic boardgames already do this with the concept of force pools. Some games add units to a nation's force pool each calender year. It seems to me that if the game were to take this approach, that SC could look a bit more like history and be less likely to resemble the unreal world where air power dominates. Research could even continue without much, if any, modification. But, the total size and shape of each nation's military forces would have a more historic and, I would argue, realistic element added. I continue to enjoy SC. I think it is a very good computer wargame. It is worthy of my and my opponant's time. But, I think with a tweak, here and there, it could be even more.

Thanks for the clarification of the supply values of a HQ Hubert. I was surprised in a recent game where an opponant opted to try an invasion of Britian and I thought that because he had failed to capture a city or a port, his supply value would be "0." But, I discovered that instead, because he had landed a HQ, he did have some supply. STRATEGIC COMMAND always teaches me something new every game. [ September 17, 2002, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

This is my last post on the subject of who and what the SS was; however, I will respond to this garbage: "Guys, I don´t believe how common these egotistic over-patriotic know-it-all trolls seem to be." You can call me a troll; but, I have been a serious historical gamer since 1969. I have a large and extensive military history game collection. I have a very large and extensive military history library. I find nothing wrong in using games to explore historical options and simply for enjoyment. However, I am always aware of how my hobby may be perceived by others. I have seen the "Das Reich Tour" T-shirts at gaming conventions and the use of Nazi symbology at gaming conventions by people who clearly either want to rewrite history or clean up the Nazi past. I understand why the laws in the Federal Republic of Germany do not permit the general use of Nazi symbology (unlike in the United States where the 1st Amendment protects such speech). And we get another cheap shot: "Regardless, perhaps we really should call this case closed. Ï think the troll in this thread has already said enough for everyone to make an opinion on him and his views, now and in the future." Your views are an embarrassment to our hobby. It is one of the reasons that military and historical games are on the decline. Most folks are repelled by the nice Nazi messages and the use of the SS Black and White graphics with all the neat Nazi icons. Along with further nonsense: "As for my take, here I agree on one of the basic american principles : Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, REGARDLESS of whether he knew what was going on, and even regardless of whether one bought into the nazi propaganda by some degree." And, you have it wrong. What the SS was has been proven, over and over again. Your view is simply not supported by the facts. "You simply cannot judge an individual based on his nationality. True, Wittman was a member of the SS - but probably so because of his elite status, and the fact that the equipment and personnel (ie. crews) were very good in there." And, this is a slurr against all Germans. Wittman was despicable not because he was German; but, because he was a member of the SS. He may have been a decent tactical officer even in spite of this. "Wittmann deserves respect regardless of his nationality or organization." And, that is nonsense. "What´d you do if you were a german soldier during WW2?" Well, you could do what Willy Brandt (future Chancellor of the Federal Republic) did and flee to Sweden. Or, you could do what Konrad Adenauer, the 1st post war German leader did and end up in a concentration camp. Or you could do what Stauffenberg tried to do, which was to kill Hitler. All these actions were honorable and are worthy of note and consideration. "Decide that "your cause if not just because of the atrocities" and report for court martial followed by an execution? Most of those that knew about the atrocities did not support them, but rather, fought for their homeland." "It´s an altogether different thing to be a fanatic and a true war criminal, though." And I will let the words of two great American historians (Williamson and Murray) end my participation in this discussion: "To the end, the Germans fought with fanaticism. Their crimes in Poland and the Soviet Union, as well as those the Soviets unleashed against German civilians in reply, provide a partial explanation for the tenacity of the defense in the east. But the Germans were hardly less tenacious in the west. A fuller explanation lies in the ideological commitment throughout the Wehrmacht. That commitment, that belief in Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, remained strong to the final days of the war." Page 483, A WAR TO BE WON: FIGHTING THE SECOND WORLD WAR, Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett: Harvard University Press, 2000. [ September 17, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Canuck_para writes: "Idealogically they were repugnant, but so are Muslim fanatics and I don't blame every Muslim for their actions." The problem with your analysis Canuck is that the SS were the Nazi fanatics. I do not blame every German for the SS; but, I do see the SS as Nazi fanatics. I don't see this as being particularily controversial. I realize that it may be unsettling for some to recognize this; but, that is the analysis that I have read by the experts in the field. Today's historians have concluded after analysis of captured German documents and records that the German Army knew more about atrocities than was generally recognized in the 1950s and 1960s (when most of the German General's memoirs were published). This is even more true when one speaks of the SS. We should be thankful that the Germans were such good record keepers regarding their actions and motivations because it can actually answer this unpleasant issue of what did your average SS man know and what was his motivation.

The "so called" Panzer Lehr writes: "I hate to say it, but Barbarossa and the Germans probably saved Europe from the USSR." Well, Barbarossa and the Third Reich insured that Germany was to be divided for fifty years and Eastern Europe would be ruled by the Communists. I suppose the Germans of today can be ever so grateful to their Fuhrer for this blessing. Of course, at the end of the war, Adolf Hitler could have cared less about what happened to the German people because they were not worthy of him. It is amazing that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor Winston Churchill had your strategic abilities and saw this brilliant notion. The only person who would seem to agree with you was Heinrich Himmler who deluded himself at the end of the war that it was still possible for Nazi Germany to make some sort of deal with the Western Allies and continue the war against Soviet Russia. However, it would seem that you and Himmler have much in common... [ September 17, 2002, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

So I take it that Panzer Lehr is saying that Denmark was not liberated by the Western Allies in 1945? That the period 1940 - 1945 was just a bad dream? Facts can just be so damned inconvenient.

The so-called Panzer Lehr writes: "Also, I'd like to point out that most of Wittmann's kills came on the Eastern front. Your statement that the people trying to kill Wittmann were defending democracy or some rediculous line like that. Wittmann did just as much to save Democracy as any American tanker by killing SOVIETS." All I can say to that garbage is thank god for the Red Army. We, in the West, owe much to the Red Army for winning World War II. It was Nazi Germany which was the real threat not Soviet Russia (which was not a nice place either; but they never really threatened us like the Nazis). "And don't even get me started on war crimes. Let's go through a few, shall we? DRESDEN. TOKYO. HIROSHIMA. MUNICH." War is not pleasant. War is hell; but, the United States, with all its faults, is not about rewriting history because we found out that we fought for the wrong side. Your point is complete rubbish. Finally, Panzer Lehr wrote: "I think that just about covers it. Take your one-sided view and leave." Nope, you can leave if you like; but, I am going to tell the truth about your nonsense as long as you post it. Your views are so extreme and out of whack with history that it would be wrong to let them go unanswered. [ September 17, 2002, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]