Dandelion

Though not necessarily stronger roadblocks in CM than real life, we do seem to have impotent engineers. It would take a squad of assault engineers with vanilla equipment about three minutes to clear a vehicle sized hole in any of the three examples. Just using standard issue 3 or 5 Kilo TNT charges and wire, serial connect if necessary but no need for anything irregular. The bottom one can be cut in seconds using trishaped bands of plastics rolled around the trunk. Bang and off it goes. Of course, it'd still be lying there across the road so you'd have to have a second go at it to get wheeled vehicles through. Anyway, the only effective way of seriously delaying engineers are holes and ditches, they'll just blow up any piles or constructions they find. They're that kind of people. Cheers Dandelion

Quite sure K. I don't think this is a lack of research issue tho. To avoid speculation I simply note that I don't know or understand why the J and GJ squads look like this. The German army operated by K.St.N. tables (same as TOE or WE or TEG). Any unit had such a table, and would be resupplied according to it, receiving no other equipment than the K.St.N. authorised from WK. If the men somehow got a hold of other types of equipment - say an abnormal amount of smgs - they would receive no ammunition, spare parts etc for these items, thus be unable to use them for very long. Same goes for captured equipment etc. The number of K.St.N. tables is quite overwhelming, but fortunately the J and GJ used only a handful. Namely the 132 series, with appendices. There were alot of special solutions - units issued with captured stocks of rifles, vehicles etc. But these are rare among regular army units, found primarily among security forces and paramilitary units, and Waffen SS. Such exceptions, however miniscule, had to be confirmed with a K.St.N. table (labeeld fg, or freie gliederung, but using the standard number of that unit K.St.N.), since the unit concerned had no other way of actually making sure that the equipment and supplies it needed travelled from producer/stocks all the way through the chain of supply, to their unit. German units also stole a lot, from eachother and from the supply chain. They used false reporting, usually referred to as Schwarzbestand (black stock, to non-Germans). In Stalingrad, for example, the 6th Army officially ran out of several hundred types of supply stocks several weeks before they actually did so, because these black stocks, found at every division as it turned out, were emptied. Still, while enabling divisions to keep precious stock (e.g. securing delivery of increased amounts of AFVs by false reporting of AFVs in stock as "lost" etc), and to accumulate emergency supply stocks, they could not get a hold of equipment alien to the unit. So apart from the odd single man or small unit in temporary posession of odd equipment, it is fairly simple to find out what Germans units were equipped with. There was a mass issuing of submachineguns starting in 1942 and indeed this was because their value as close combat weapons had been realised in the massive urban battles in the east. Initially the Germans regarded them as self defence weapons only. So your source seems to be accurate. The issuing increased the smg count to two per squad (in 1940, we will recall, it was one per platoon), which across the entire army of course meant the issuing of quite a few weapons. In the same change, most types of assault squads were (supposed to be) issued two lmgs per squad. No squads were equipped solely with smgs tho, the first such appear in experimental types of units in the Reserve army in late 44 and onward, none belonging to the J or GJ. As has been pointed out, the smg was particularly impotent in the alpine environment. Standard combat range in large scale conventional armed conflict post Korea, in regions resembling Europe, is difficult to surmise. Fortunately there haven't been any. But weapons are now adapted to mechanised warfare either way, with infantry MCV borne and dismonting for assault only. Light weight, high suppression, small size, lots of ammo. Cheerio Dandelion

Yes it was. With another terminology but with same end effect. The Germans (and probably everyone else I imagine) started dividing squads in WWI. The practice fell in popularity between the wars (left the German manuals in 1927 to be precise) but appeared again full scale after the 1940 campaigns. The squads divided naturally into a machinegun halfsquad (Trupp) and a rifle halfsquad. Or two of the former in some cases. Yours Dandelion

Not only did the Germans not have all of their units equipped like the CMBB "Jäger" squads, they didn't even have Jäger squads equipped like that. These squads are fictional and presumably for game purpouses only. Actual Jäger squads were equipped like all other infantry, two smgs and rifles (plus lmg). The smg was a substandard combat weapon. It had a theoretical range of 150 metres. However, at that range, single fire was used and accuracy was abysmal (try hitting a barn door using even short bursts). Only at 50 some metre range did it (does it) become effective, and even at that range it was more of a suppressive weapon than a very lethal one. In real life, the smg was able to make a useful contribution only in urban environments and in the point blank stage of an assault. Situations not common but still important enough to consider. In CMAK/BB as well, smgs are ineffective beyond 50 metre range, matched by any rifle at 100 metres and none except the Thompson reaching beyond 100m. Thus an accurate simulation. Had the qualities of suppression and lethality been separated more effectively, the full difference between aimed and fully automatic fire would have been more accurately illustrated. Generally speaking, the higher rate of fire the greater suppressive effect, and lesser lethal effect, unless dedicated ROF weapons such as machineguns, with which it is possible to aim and fire fully automatic at the same time. American semi automatic rifles were encountered en masse in 1942 and provoked several alarming German reports. Reports focused on being outgunned in 1:1 situations, and while this did not actually lead to higher levels of German casualties, it led to lower level of US casualties, since the volume of suppressive fire delivered by the US was superior, making German movement and effective fire very difficult. Put simply, they found themselves pinned. The MP44, designed to replace squad weaponry except the lmg, was in concept a semi-automatic rifle with a credible fully automatic option for point blank range. While retaining the accuracy and range of the rifle, with the very significant advantage of not having to make any bolt action or lose sight of the target between shots, it also negated the handicap of rifles in urban combat and like environments. The Germans were thus able to deliver both the suppressive and lethal volumes of their US enemies. After the war, a very similar type of weapon was adopted, the G3. Being perhaps more focused on the rifle role, as the fully automatic really staggers violently with the G3. Same was true for all of NATO, with the M14, FN FAL etc. It is a bit of a mystery of CMAK/BB, why combat distances become so dwarfed. I have often wondered why actually. The average combat distance of WWII in Europe was 350 metres according to the Germans. CMAK/BB combat seem to occur at 50 metres on a regular basis. Of course, at such distances, the smg really becomes very handy. And units such as the CMAK/BB "Jäger" (and indeed "Gebirgsjäger", using the same strange TOE) squads become very interesting. And of course one wonders why the Germans had no such units for real, etc. Yours Dandelion

Yes, cute little thing isn't it. German design, don't know of any exports and I think it was produced in one factory only. To my knowledge there was no official issuing of these weapons, as far as I know it was a civilian market weapon. But officers were allowed to (until 1931 supposed to) finance their own sidearm. As a consequence, these weapons appear on photos. In peacetime I have seen them on infantry officers - perhaps for the same reasons that they used fake lightweight helmets, bayonets etc; i.e. convenience. But just my speculation there. In wartime photo's, I have encountered it only among air force personnel and navy personnel. Submariners and pilots, people in crammed spaces - officers to be precise. But I have no conclusive source on the model 9. Mattias, didn't you own this small-arm-pornography book with every single small arm used by the German army? Cheerio Dandelion

No objection. Cheers Dandelion

Firepower against troops behind a stone wall is reduced by 70%, same as sandbags. Reduction is 100% if HIDE or PIN or otherwise lying down. So it is rather effective. A hedge (low hedge) and wooden fence reduces firepower with 40%. A trench reduces incoming FP with 95%. So you see why it is so extremely efficient when placed behind walls (100FP comes through as 3.5FP if it has to cross the wall - and if placed on a ridge or hillock it has to). Of course, that puts a strain on your imagination. But you could always imagine the trenches to be knee deep, or something. Cheerio Dandelion

Those values seem very strange to me. Blast is the same as firepower, only with an area effect. Values correspond, 50FP is the same as 50BV. Indirect fire (on board or off board) use BV and can thus use the same scale. The 5cm mortar is the exact equivalent of one Lee Enfield rifle at 100m range, but with area effect. The To-Hit roll is separate from the Effect-In-Target roll. It is handled separately and thus accuracy does not work as a general effect-reducing factor in the way cover does. Area fire or aimed fire affects chances to hit, not effects in target if actually hit. In my and Mattias's tests 100 firepower points was quite enough to effectively put a Regular squad out of action, with grave casualties and probable rout. That's unmodified points, with cover deduction. Easiest performed in open terrain (75%) for test runs. In the runs me and Mattias did (about 50) we saw that a firepower of 25 (unmodified value) might well cause casualties too, and was enough to immediately force a squad to dive for cover, which at longer range is as effective as a PIN result. The scale of 25, give or take 10, is the one used by machineguns for suppressive long range fire. Works real well. As you point out, sustained fire will cumulate effect and cause greater morale loss. Cover values makes it very difficult to amass FP at the scale of 900FP. The Manual says nowhere that all FP directed at a given target is actually added into one roll, rather than all attackers performing separate attacks. So we don't know, and if it is not amassed one cannot reach 900FP at all. To illustrate; against a squad in a Heavy Building (either size) you would need 65 German rifle squads to reach those values. At point blank range (40 meters or less, but excluding grenades). Even with the target squad sitting behind a flimsy wooden fence, it would require 13 such squads cumulated firepower to reach it. At point blank range. To get a point of reference, a German Rifle squad firing at a squad in a ordinary forest (pines or no pines), with the enemy squad deployed at the edge of the forest - a fairly typical and common situation - has 34 FP at point blank range (less than 40 meters but exluding grenades). At 100 meters the same squad has 24FP. If the enemy is deployed ten meters into the forest (and if in such a case spotted at all), we are down to 19FP (100m range). To set the scale of the game I mean. You can find all blast values at CMAKdb and CMBBdb. Not in a separate table but easily available. Fastjack In not so long (think March), me and Mattias will get our thumbs out of our X and finish and publish the tactical aid as we promised on this forum earlier, including tutorial scenarios. It is primarily Noob-adapted. But we're not finished with it yet. You know, the holidays and all. Welcome aboard nonetheless Cheerio Dandelion

Thompson If you are not too particular, and just need a generic rule of thumb, squad frontage can be said to be 50 meters. The rest is just adding (but remember that the formula calls for two up front and one rear, so a platoon would use 100 meters, not 150, and so on). That frontage is frontage as in covered by men. Actual frontages issued to units were much wider, because you need not actually stand eight paces apart along an entire frontage in order to control it. Of course, this is all just highly generic, not taking into consideration any of the highly relevant variables listed by Michael (the American Michael), nor national difference. Frontages have been discussed many times before and a "search" will rapidly bring lots of more specific information. Don't forget to do search om CMBB and CMBO forums as well. And let us know if you needed something more specific. Cheerio Dandelion

Encouraged and enthusiastic about this new enterprise, I fail to understand why so many are being so negative. Which is not saying I am not open to enlightenment. Having 11 men on a 2 by 2 square is not exactly the design strength of CM. Splitting the squads, yet being limited by the command radius (what is it, some 75 meters maximum?) enables a player to extend more realistic frontages. A IRL squad would use eight pace distance between the men by default in hostile environments, meaning ten men had a frontage of eighty some paces. Meaning that if you deploy in line behind, say, a church in CM, you'd be able to fire forward on both sides of the church. But you're not. Because all of your men are piled in a 2x2 square in the game, and can fire only from there (but still take punishment from a wider, unspecified area - rumored to be 30 square metres). Myself I have fallen victim to rumors of vulnerability in splitting squads. Believing in it, one will experience it to be true too, when doing it. But I can see now that such fears have been much exaggerated. I don't feel Slysniper or Bone Vultures opponent have anything to make apologies for. My definition of gamey is the creation and explotation of surreal events. This is in fact forcing the game into greater realism. Lets see if the sound advice of Kingfish and Sergei and others will beat the guy. And if it doesn't, all power to him. Keep us posted Bone. I promise not to comment on your game, just study the effect of the split squads assault. Cheerio Dandelion

John, I am no surprised by the statement in your source. Germany made extensive use of motorcycles (and bicycles) throughout the war. There were motorcycle units, and units using motorcycles as substitutes for other vehicles in short supply. In armoured divisions, most of the recon battallion would be motorcycle borne until late in the war. Motorised infantry units that had no trucks could on occasion use motorcycles instead, and of course at all levels of command you'd find a couple (or quite a few) motorcycles for messenger duty. So lots of bikes around at all times and if a force needed to be lifted on wheels for rapid redeployment, bikes would perhaps be a easily fetched mean of transport. But as Mike points out, these were not combat vehicles. Only tanks, TDs and some SPGs were actually ever considered combat vehicles suitable for high intensity combat environments. Other vehicles were supposed to be left outside such areas. Like trucks, bicycles and horses, motorcycles were used for transport, the men entering known contacts on foot. In fact, halftracks were also usually left behind, with the Panzergrenadiers also normally entering combat on foot. You will find exceptions. In the KTB of the 12th SS there is a scene where the Germans attempt a ruse, and charge on motorcycles into an enemy position. This had worked fine in Greece in 1941, it is claimed, which was the last encounter with UK units that the commanders knew (Meyer and Wünsche as it was). But in Normandy it all ended in a bloodbath (Germans doing the dying), and the Division realised their enemy had matured beyond base bluff. In the battle of Arnhem, a German platoon of the 9th SS also tries to rush a position on motorcycles, with the same end result. I myself would have loved to have motorcycles in the game. As I recall it, it was merely a question of limited capacity at the time, and in the fight for space in the game, bikes could never compete with the most common AFV designs. I also miss the Schwimmwagen and Kettenkrad. Not very important for the war effort, but lending that certain air to things. Cheerio Dandelion

Tom, I delight at your courtesy, and wish to be your equal at this, though I feel the limitations of not speaking my native tounge here. Know at least my desire in this. The focal problem (quality as I see it) is that you are the Borg. Not you personally, I mean the Player, any player. Is the Absolute Spotter. Enemies encountered by your units will have to manifest themselves somehow, if they wish to interfere. Say they kill your Jeep. Your jeep can blow up, be gunned down, just disappear - any type of interference which is not caused by you will be noted by you as a hostile presence. The Borg mind is made aware of a hostile presence. Of some kind. The enemy might show on the map, or might not show, might show up in the wrong place, be just an icon, many interesting options are available. Enemy units/icons/nothing that appear or do not appear might and might not be able to be targeted with direct or indirect fire. I imagine all this to be possible to edit. Either way you will still have seen those enemies, or at least know they are there, somewhere. You will redirect your will, redeploy, move up reserves, aim barrels, advance with caution - all of it against enemies that only a handful of your men, now lying dead in a jeep, have actually seen/experienced/encountered/fallen victim to, before being able to report anything to anybody. This is the supernatural awareness of which I am a partisan. Impossible for any IRL commander to have, and unrealistic in a sense (but not in all). I am hoping (and now much reassured) it will remain in future CM titles. Yours Truly Dandelion

Steve and fellow posters, Do we as players want realistic conditions of a military commander (at any level of command) in combat, or do we prefer to be act the role of the collective will of a military unit working to achieve an objective? The latter is what we do now I think, never really entering the individual minds of soldiers or commanders as such. I think the Borg problem (in the sense of supernatural awareness, rather than spotting rules) should perhaps not be solved. Because it may not be a problem. Maybe it is a quality of the game. There was this game, maybe of Commodore 64 vintage, where one played out naval battles using text only. Looking much like a Word document really. Coordinates and events were reported in as demanded from the various vessels, as if standing by a radio many miles from the battle. Maps were irrelevant in wide open ocean. You knew nothing that your vessel commanders did not report, and if not within visual range of the enemy your commanders knew nothing that you did not inform them of. In it's own fashion, this was realistic (and I recall enjoying the game). Such simulations of individual commanders can be placed at any level - in OFP you will normally be a squad leader, for instance. But of course with every step in the CoC away from the individual soldiers, you also surrender control of events, until finally reaching a most abstract state of flags and lines on a map. As the commander will not be able to leave his maps and signallers at a certain level, it makes sense making simulations of the Airborne Assault type. At the other extreme we have the FPS game, simulating individual experience but lacking any kind of tactical challenge. Personally I always felt that CM made a solid compromise, using basically the same level as ASL (control down to squad level, but not individual men) but introducing a score of substantial improvements over the latter (including semi-independent squads). It appears to be a good level for modern warfare simulation, combining the tactical challenge of chess with FPS-type 3D dramatic experience, the two ingredients enrichening rather than weaking the other. CM was always the rightlevel for me. Adressing the Borg problem with a mind to completely eliminate it (again meaning the divine powers of observation and situational awareness in a wider sense than just unit spotting), will inevitably force a definition of the player, since anything is understandable or observable only in relation to someone or something. And as soon as the player is defined he is immediately confined. He is someplace specific in the 3D environment, and must be in order for the illusion to work. We are back at the Naval game, except we travel in a much improved 3D environment. And one cannot say it is entirely unrealistic. A group working together toward a common goal just might act as coordinated as if driven by a single will. The whole structure of any armed force is designed to create just that effect and with some confusion and irregularity injected by wrestling detailed control out of our hands (men panicking, men reacting negatively upon not seeing their CO and so on), I personally find the solution credible enough. Cheerio Dandelion

While I agree entirely with Jon here, that C3I is beyond real conditions and thus erasing any doctrine of utilising confusiuon and doubt to ojnes advantage, I'd have to say it is still possible to perform counterattack in a manner utilising enemy disorganisation. Not primarily confusion of course - there is little - but enemy troops are worn down (suppressed and reduced) as they enter your former positions and in very auspicious circumstance, a flank attack at such a point will indeed have dramatic effect. Unfortunately, I have not succeeded with this as often as my enemies, but I have seen it on quite a few occasions. A handful of men counter-assaulting a flank and causing damage out of proportion to their numbers, to an assaulting, shattered and disorganised force. As one is Godlike in ones control of the forces, the significant effect of veteran troops - to act rather than react on a battlefield - is somewhat lost. I don't mind, I want that human control, but a quality is sacrificed no doubt. Cheers Dandelion

Ah. I just found the other Steiner-sig debate in CMAK - and the Steiner-sig thread locked by Admin in CMAK. See what you mean.

Why would it be?

Very amusing reflection there Talorgan, delivered in quality prose too. I mean the top one, not the one above mine here Cheerio Dandelion

Your first impression is actually the correct one. Revisionist was a term among historians for a person providing an alternative interpretation of available evidence. This was a positive thing in historical research, or at least interesting. However, travelling from that narrow sense into a wider audience in public debate, the term has come to mean a person providing an alternative interpretation of historical events in defiance of available evidence. Meaning there is no evidence at all, or evidence that cannot withstand critical examination. The first to be called revisionists in medias and such as I recall it, were people denying the holocaust. I seem to recall they called themselves this, initially. The defiance, and lack of own evidence, is defended by a theory of a omnipotent power censoring and adjusting all existing evidence and influencing/coercing historians and other authors. To Nazis (who are not the only guys doing this), this power is often referred to as ZOG, but many other terms are frequently used, and Nazis need not always be very familiar with Neo Nazi theory. For a person with this belief (that public history is all lies), evading the lies of the omnipotent power and finding the Real Truth becomes critical. People not initiated in this hunt are either active or passive vessels of ZOG (or the traitorious German government, or the Victor Powers, etc). The passive ones are uninsightful and uninteresting, not realising the full extent of the conspiracy anyway. The active are Jews, a definition that has nothing to do with religion or ethniticity (which is how Stalin became a Jew to these people). Books by authors denying the holocaust (or the defeat at Stalingrad, or that Hitler made mistakes etc), especially authors with academic degrees, are regarded as rare and precious artefacts that the ZOG is trying to eliminate. Existing books of other authors are read notwithstanding, but primarily in order to find clues of the actual events that took place, penetrating the lies. Maybe the authors have made mistakes, or left clues in the text. If I read that Hitler made a bad decision, I can create a theory that either it is a lie - say by finding a conflicting date somewhere and seeing in it a hole in the web of lies - or the mistake was actually made but then there must have been someone else appearing in the book who deceived him into doing it. Like Rommel, a faithless traitor. The struggle to rewrite history recognises the power of history, and the idea is to control it. You know the way they do it in Orwells "1984", erasing recorded history in order to write new history, in which Big Brother was made eternal and so on. The Nazis are aware that as long as they are associated with the things they are associated with today, there is no road back to power. As a counter-image, they have developed a picture of themselves as victims of aggression, oppression and persecution. Responsible are of course the Jews. This all probably sounds lunatic to you. And it is of course. But while the notion of public information being all lies and a huge conspiracy may sound bizarre it is not so alien to the German citizens who joined us just a decade or so ago, having spent half a century in a totalitarian state not at all unlike Nazi Germany in structure. With falsified history books and suppressed domestic debate. And Zero years in a democratic state. Our domestic problems with revisionism and right wing extremism has seen a sharp rise after the reunion. You might have noted that Steiner, Leo and I, like Andreas and Schörner who clashed over the same issues, have something in common. Though an issue in all countries, it is perhaps an issue of some intensity in ours. Cheerio Dandelion

Certainly. By turning individuals into parts of a collective, robbing them of individual traits, you de-humanise them. The necessary stage before any Pogrom or civil war. Nazis using lies are the smaller of evils. Nazis using truth is the bigger. Nazis will parasite upon the pain of others to provoke collective feelings of hatred. If I describe how people were ill treated only because they were Germans, Germans are liable to feel a part of them has been ill treated. Because it could have been them. We enter the debate of Sudeten Germans et cetera. The ancient cycle of collective revenge in the way of a Corsican bloodfeud is so easily preyed upon. Not so easy to stop. I do not believe in a German soul, or the soul at all, nor original sin. Nor very much in revenge (I try to better myself here). People are individuals and responsible for their own actions. I resent as much the proclamation of German national guilt as I do the surprise equally often displayed that the German people was capable of such acts. They weren't. Guilty or capable. A lot of individuals were. One cannot always help how one feels, but always help what one does, and says. Conversely, though weaker, there is a responsibility for what one does not say, and not do. Belief in the individual is a trademark of democratic ideals, reflected in the individual right to vote. The Versailles Treaty was old Europe, powers preying upon eachother. The war between nations starting in 1939 was in my humble opinion merely a continuation of what had always been. I find it uninteresting to debate guilt or blame when statesmen make decisions in closed halls, triggering wars as their game of cards gets out of their inept control. This will be a controversial opinion I guess, as Germans were sentenced for planning a war of aggression. But I don't mind that they were. It has to start somewhere, to change. In my view, 1945 was the start of many things wonderful, not just the end of yet another war. Germany was an infant at the time, most people had lived most of their lives in feudal states, they had experience a few years of trial democracy, years that were no more impressive than present day Iraq, easy to lose faith prematurely, easy to grasp for any alternative providing "order". "Order" followed, in Italy, Greece, Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and on it goes. It was the tide of the times. From homes to workplaces and the armies hierarchy was rigid an unquestioned. Messages from authority were by and large accepted - which is not the same as sharing views with the government, just accepting the legitimacy of power. Regarded as a collective, Germans were "servile" in the sense of easily led into war. And once in... The Germans did not execute the holocaust. A very small group of individuals of many nationalities - German, Austrian, Ukranian, Polish etc - carried out the Endlösung program. It was decided by representatives the government, and condoned by the head of state. The ideological struggle of the war did not follow state borders. In the final battle for Berlin, "Germany" was defended by a lot of people born in other states. Beevor calls it the funeral pyre of rightwing extremism in Europe, a phrase I much like, even though it was not to be their funeral. Most certainly. Though I do not see why you presume I do not feel they are the same men under other colours. People are people. Everywhere. I have no leaders Leo, I have elected representatives. The age of the Leader has passed. I have no faith in my elected representatives, thus I appreciate democratic control of all public institutions, including the armed forces. But I do have faith in my fellow man. And so I believe in democracy. Like I write above - I do not believe in anything inherently German. The colour of a flag - random as it is - protects nobody from any affliction. Thus Abu Greib comes as anything but a surprise to me. Patriotism, chauvinism, fundamentalism and intolerance are as revolting to me in our time as they are when we find it in the past. It's all just a continuation of pre-industrail frame of mind, where people all belong to a collective - family, clan, village, whatever - and are defined by it. As an alibi. That does not change anything concerning Steiners tag. Steiners posts are no problem. He posted those above in threads discussing the very matters he discussed. I merely wished to illustrate his use of Nazi rhetoric phrases in this thread, as people seemed unfamiliar with it. It is his tag, that is a problem here. National Socialism is an ideology. It is not merely preying upon the everywhere commonplace patriotism, chauvinism, populism. There is an agenda, to rewrite history, to defame the scientific study of the past, to "correct" the description of the past so that it may fit another future than the one we are pursuing. Steiner is just another bookburner, pointing fingers at academic studies and branding them as "censored" whenever not confirming his views. Perhaps the light of the "flame" exposed him then? I see him nowhere. It would appear he left you and the Holländer here to cover his flight, making much of this debate on values useless, since he is not part of it. Sincerely Dandelion

But the men in "Stalingrad" as well as "Das Boot" are heroic and self sacrificing. Not to mention the men in "Cross of Iron". In any standard Hollywood production you will see scores of anonymous Germans taking extreme risks and appearing to be totallly devoted, dying in hordes with no apparent remorse. Even in romantic dramas such as "The English Patient" you will see glimpses of ideological conviction, along with personal sadism or liberal ideas, among German soldiers. Swastikas are usually hung everywhere - on cars, trains, buildings et cetera, so the source of their moitivation is made known. In "Stalingrad" as such we see both anonymous men sacrificing their lives for their superior officers, and characters in the movie risking their lives for eachother. The motive is generally comradeship and personal loyalty. Steiner reacts with disgust when the men force a doctor to heal a comrade. Steiner feels a coward is being saved. Well, that's what he wrote anyway. The same scene appears in "A Bridge Too Far". It is a very powerful display of love between friends - the very German camaraderie that Steiner express as slandered by the movie. Obviously, then, it is not the camaraderie but the comrades that do not suit Steiner. Friendship appears to be the source of heroism in all involved armies in the war. The ideological convictions of men seem not to matter much in combat. Reading hardcore NSDAP members - who never "repented" - such as Meyer it does seem he confirms the picture of men driven by camaraderie rather than deliberate ideological conviction. For people giving their lives for the ideals of National Socialism, see "Die Brücke". In any combat, the guys butchering the other guys are busy for a while, I cannot really see why this is a point that needs to be made in order to create an manysided view on events. It can be presumed that the Soviet forces destroying the sixth army could not simultaneously destroy the rest of the German army, by any reasonable person. Steiner use words such as heroic sacrifice - suggesting intent in sacrifice and willingness to perish. This is an attempt to describe history which contrast with scientific research, which is why we normally call it revisionist. There are no accounts or evidence corroborating that the men sacrificed themselves in order to save the remaining German armed forces. Evidence suggest they were shocked to be abandoned and that a major crisis of morale appeared as they slowly realised that they were. By creating a vision of Thermopylae, a stoic and intentional self-sacrifice, revisionist attempt to re-write history into a version they like better. That even Hitler confessed it was all a horrible mistake is, for once then, ignored (You will note in the debate on Rommels solutions in the East that Steiner feels Rommel deceived Hitler in the Med, even persuading OKW to make disastrous decisions - another example of re-write of history, again typical of revisionism). Steiner also mentions the need to defend Europe. He feels it is left unmentioned in the movie. And it is, since the movie is about an unprovoked assault on the Soviet Union. Describing it as a defence was common in Nazi rhetoric - in fact most agrressions in history are explained as defensive measures by the governments committing them. Why this rhetoric must be included in a movie portraying soldiers that never heard it, eludes me. It isn't. It is sufficient to label him as a revisionist. It is his messages on Jews that is sufficient to label him as a hatemonger. I am afraid we have no conclusive figures on political opinion in Germany after the NSDAP was invited to form a government. Notwithstanding, I feel we should be careful about buying government statements off hand. The NSDAP government proclaimed that their popular support was strong, because of the domestic policy of full-employment. The focal concern of any historian - wie es eigentlich gewesen ist - is unknown. I agree, though this is also a sensitive issue, as it is anarchist rhetoric that the face of capitalism will turn into fascism as soon as it is threatened by socialism. I am not a partisan of the Communist cause. I resent all totalitarian movements. Steiner is in his text denying they existed as a powerfactor at all. An attempt to rewrite history, portraying the German labour force as Nazi in ideology. Except the Jews, of course, who were all Bolsheviks. I do not believe in any "objective" reality at all. That word is always used by people preaching their personal beliefs. History is not objective science, you cannot repeat experiment or prove a thesis. Even the evidence at hand - documentation - is subjective and vulnerable to manipulation and personal interpretation. Lack of documentation - or lack of research - make all academic work on history incomplete and subject to future re-evaluation. The possibility of debating a sensitive issue would depend on the environment of course, but most of all on yourself. You can argue and present your evidence, and your method of interpretation. Or you can present no basis or evidence at all, make general statements, produce ideological rhetoric and racist comment, such as those of Steiner. Steiner has the same opportunity as everyone else to debate any topic however sensitive on this forum. I can prove that it is quite possible, starting a thread on any subject of your choice. Or of Steiners choice. It is all in your approach to evidence available, interpretation of truth and your respect for your fellow debaters. Now you are contradicting yourself You said before that Germans portrayed as believing in the Nazi cause is never portrayed, and now you say it is generally accepted to portray all Germans as believing in that cause. But, seriously, I meet this frustration often, more so before when lecturing than nowadays, and many feel "the lid is on" just like you do, particularly in Germany. I am not denying the lid. My parent generation in Germany - just like yours I imagine - grew up with a very tight lid indeed, unable even to process their own sorrow for the loved lost, unable to debate events of the war that did not fit with the New Germany, such as the mass evictions and genocides of Germans in the East. There were a lot of hidden photographs, sudden silence at the dinner table and a lot of bitterness. I suppose the New German state was not capable of meeting these emotions or events at the time, weak, unstable and unready in her own fragile state. Any sorrows of war would always threaten to sparkle revanchisme, hatred, resentment et cetera and instead of facing this pain, they just pressed down the lid, even censoring schoolbooks. "History" will show if this was necessary for the transfer to a democratic state, or mere oppression. But you know, under the flag of being oppressed by that lid, come the entire Wiederbetätigung movement. Proclaiming to tell the Truth. I find it essential to confront and expose them. While at the same time meeting face to face those who have questions - not answers - and want to debate and express their frustration. As for "foreigners" , I find the climate of debate good nowadays. There will be people with simplified views, unwilling to accept that the world is complex, shouting revisionist at you even for debating the effects of allied strategic bombing. Not a lot one can do except argue with them, present ones thesis and evidence and prove ones point. I am not so sure it is so bad. I have often made these statements and not met with a lot of reaction. I think the Americans are a bit of a blessing here, as they can relate to changing times in terms of views upon "races" et cetera. That Europe was generally Darwinist (in the racist way) at the time and that France had concentration camps before Germany did - and the British before them - will not appear as shocking to a national who can himself remember segregated buses. I find this an asset. Generally speaking distance to the war in time has made a lot of things easier. Including the passing of the participating generation. It is good to know ones opinions are popular Though I feel less certainty than you about it. It is not what I meet in my ordinary life. Europe is changing in many ways, hard to tell general tendencies. And remember that not a generaion ago, Steiner would be PC, and I would be in jail. I guess we must decide how we prefer things, when not compatible. Cheerio Dandelion [ January 06, 2005, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Dandelion ]

Well then let's begin with taking the time to read some of Steiners posts shall we? There are 189 of them to read. Steiner, reacting on the German movie "Stalingrad". (excerpt) If Steiners message is not clear to you, he finds the movie revisionist, denying the heroic sacrifice at Stalingrad and not mentioning the need to defend Europe by assaulting the USSR. This is Steiner reacting on a suggestion from Mikey that communism might have had appeal on the German labor force. (excerpt) The NSDAP never reached more than 40% support in any category of the labor force and Germany had the largest communist party of Europe. There was communist unrest as late as 1944 in Hamburg. There was worldwide support of the USSR coming from trade unions, throughout the war. Not least US such. The bulk of all resistance in all of occupied Europe was communist, thus apparently of some appeal after all. But these matters, Steiner will regard as Bolshevik propaganda, Jew lies and Victor censorship. This is Steiner debating a book and also reacting on acomment from Zveroboy (excerpt) Carisius was of the firm and declared opinion that the West should have joined Nazi Germany in her aggression on the USSR which, incidentally, he did not regard as an aggression but a preemptive strike. He was very far from alone. Many Germans were lost in the same delusion and somehow forgot who attacked who. Carisius is being "objective". Having any other opinion is being "subjective". If Carisius is wrong, it is merely because he is a simple, honest, hard working German. It goes on, to shorten my post here I leave you to find the remainder via Search. These are typical Wiederbetätiger statements, they all sound the same and they all read the ten or fifteen books revealing the Real Truth about the Nazis and the war. Where the Nazis are made heroic victims, Germans are warheroes and the rest of Europe is one big aggressor, and Judaism the source of all evil. All other books, archives, photos, are lies, censored and propaganda. Science is disregarded, discarded as politically correct and censored. You do not know, you say, how Steiner feels about politics. But it is so simple. Ask Steiner. He will explain. He cannot tell the whole truth, since he would be banned, but enough. Start in, say, Auschwitz? Steiner is silent here but he does not always hide in the shadows and he is by now an old-timer. He will defend his values if they attacked on the forum. I disagree with your definition of freedom of speech. You are confusing democracy with apathy. Freedom of speech is not in any democracy a freedom of the individual to offend his fellow man, nor the preaching of hatred. Any society will act to suppress and prevent centrifugal forces trying to rip it apart. All European nations - and many other of course - have laws to curb hatepreachers. Including your own. Your country is party and subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. According to which it is illegal to preach hatred on grounds of ethniticity, religion, sexual persuation or gender. You speak as if you had the impression that these opinions were instead protected under the freedom of speech of the same convention? Democracy is not the blend of everything, it is not the white light containing all other colours of light, it is a distinct set of values with an identity of its own, separate from rival ideologies. It appears pluralist because pluralism and tolerance are part of the values, but pluralism does not extend to hostile ideologies, because it can't coexist with them. Democratic values are not eternal, nor self evident, nor general. There are other values still - such as corporate states, fascism, martialistic values, fundamentalist religious states et cetera. Values are in conflict, democratic values can no better survive in the dominance of hostile values than any of the other can. Thus, values are fragile, can be attacked, can deteriorate, can be lost and must be supported, defended, argued for in order to continue to exist. Hostile values do not go away if you ignore them. They grow, unanswered and unchallenged, like any other argument. What is happening in your own country right now? You do not only have "nice" programs on your TV anymore, do you? Values seem to deteriorate and the strahngest news of ethnic hate and violence reaches us. Why do you think that is? Colt, David, Leopard and I defended the values insulted by the hatemessage in Steiners signature. By argument. This is voicing critical opinion. Critical opinion is not a characteristic trait of Cuba, nor China, and I wouldn't know about Iraq right now. It is a characteristic trait of the continents in which we four, and you, live (and not only these continents). Again the urgency to remain on topic, in your post. In my opinion, David and Colt, first to react here, acted to cleanse the forum of political provocations, thus infinitely more helping this place to stay on topic CM (and on any other non-confrontational common interest, such as Indian food) than any ignoring of the same or telling everyone to stay silent will ever do. I sympathise with both efforts and would not want to be less than they in this. Steiner does not explixitly incite violence. Hitler never once uttered the words "kill jews!" It doesn't work that way, you do not preach action, you preach hatred, minority groups lose individual status, action follows. This is my hobby, like you and everyone else I do not wish to be disturbed by unpleasant realities here and I am probably among those most resentful about people shoving politics down my throat in threads (you mention the Israeli tanker). The issue with Steiners tag is but one: Steiner is furthering his political opinion in his tag. Steiner will find peace as soon as he stops. But he does not stop. And so there is no peace. And. Though I know nothing of him, I cannot believe your grandfather fought for the right to preach hatred among people. Sincerely Dandelion

Money. Cheers Dandelion

You underestimate the ignorant I don't own CMBB, I merely parasite on the forum to read interesting debate. It seemed like nobody was going to ask, so I had to. Didn't even know this here... thing, existed. I agree with Meravelha on the aesthetic issue. Cheers Dandelion

Mr P Wase May sound strange but I agree with you and David and Colt. Because my view is that Steiner defines the topic of the thread himself, by injecting hatemessages in his tags. Tags are volontary, if you put a message in it, it is part of your post here, and not off topic. Steiner asked about skis, and expressed his fear of ZOG. Both can thus rightly be adressed in any answer here, as I see it, without straying from topic. Hatemessages in tags is not ok with me, I think it disrespectful and ruthless, expressing disregard for the feelings of other debaters here. Steiner has joined a open global forum to share his hobbies with kins of mind, yet at the same time he display in his tag that he prefer the company of some, but not all of us. Among gamers and grogs, here or on conventions, there is usually a code of mutual respect resembling that of athletics. Meaning we do not use this particular forum to express criticism of the errs we feel others commit in life. It's a platform for enjoying what we have in common instead. So let's all do as you say, stick to the topic of our common passion, in our tags as well. But Steiner has heard all of this before, and it has not prompted him to show more conern for his fellow man, or respect either, in here. By the way, your tag contains a link that cannot be followed. Says I am not allowed in... Yours Truly Dandelion

Jon Come on and publish it will you. Upload on the scenario depot. So we can all download it. Cheerio Dandelion