Armchair Generals

[Randell Daigre]

Posted by iolo:

what about Adolf Hitler?

Did he not do exactly what we're doing now, in this game? An ordinary man (albeit with some WWI trench experience) trying to run a war.

Yeah, but look what happened to him.

In all seriousness, it has been asserted that Hitler's "interest" in the details of the war effort hampered the Germans greatly. Perhaps if he had had a lower opinion of his own abilities, the Germans would have done better. I shudder to think such a result. The German generals, however, were the ones who made most of the battle plans, decisions, *and* mistakes. That is the way that it usually works in most countries in modern times.

Some of the decisions you are called on to make in SC are within the realm of a political leader, but most of them are within the sphere of a military leader's decisions (and SC is one of the few wargames on a large enough scale to offer even that much). The people who make such decisions in real life generally have more experience and educational background appropriate to the task than Hitler (or Stalin, Churchill, or FDR, for that matter) did.

P.S.- For anyone who is interested, this started over on page 5 of "Air power is much too strong....".

[ October 06, 2002, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

[sogard]

I agree with French Prime Minister Clemenceau who said (and I paraphrase), "war is too important to be left to the generals."

And, I include armchair generals in that sentiment.

My use of the term "armchair generals" is generally directed to those who don't want to be bothered by the little details that largely shaped the way that war was fought in any given era. We would all want to have unlimited resources, manpower and supplies; but, that is not how the real world works. I think that it is the issue which prevents STRATEGIC COMMAND from painting a much more realistic overview of the war in Europe 1939-1945. It is the reason that Hitler sought and got a war in which he fought his enemies one at a time (at least until June 22, 1941). Germany only stood a chance to prevail if she could dispose of her enemies in turn and the genius of Hitler is revealed when one recognizes just how close he came to pulling this trick off.

Finally, it has always struck me as appropriate that in his final testiment, Adolf Hitler blamed his generals for losing the war and his generals spent the rest of their lives (and their generally self-serving memoirs) blaming Hitler for losing the war. Maybe Hitler and the German generals deserved each other in some strange perverse way. The German generals certainly could not have screwed up the planning for Barbarossa any more even if they had set out to intentionally sabatage the invasion of Soviet Russia.

[ October 06, 2002, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Randell Daigre]

I agree with French Prime Minister Clemenceau who said (and I paraphrase), "war is too important to be left to the generals."

Yeah, because civilians handle the whole thing sooo much better (of course Clemenceau had to deal with *French* generals ).

I still think you're missing my point, though. Showing disdane for those others because they are *only* interested in getting fun out of a game implies that you are interested in getting something else out of it. But it's a game. All it is capable of delivering is fun and an intellectual challenge. The intellectual challenge comes from your opponent, not the game (your opponent has to deal with any historical inconsistencies the same as you). As for fun, well that's all relative.

For you, presumably (and for me, by the way), a wargame is more fun if it's more realistic. But that doesn't give me (or you) any reason to think I'm better or "more serious" than anyone else. It just means that I place different priorities on different aspects of the game than they do. Many people are unwilling (or unable) to spend large amounts of time learning and/or playing huge, intricate, detailed computer games (wargames or otherwise).

Personally, I am willing to put in the hours on a good and realistic game, because I feel that the payoff is worth it. If someone else is not able (or willing) to then that is their loss, IMO. But that does not mean that I (or you) am anything but a guy who plays wargames, knows more than most people about military history, and prefers his games to be more realistic than not (even at the expense of simplicity and possibly *some* playability).

Good comments on Hitler and his generals, by the way LOL.

[Rouge]

Hitler wassnt even in a front line infantry regiment. He had trouble in his early reign from his officers stating that he was only a corporal and never offically made chief of staff.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Randell Daigre:

Actually Randall, I think you missed my central point in my posts!

My criticism of STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC), as it presently exists, is not because it is a fun game which can provide alot of good intellectual fun against the AI or a human player. I give SC very high marks for this and if all a gamer wants is a "fun game," then I would recommend SC without hesitation as a fun game with alot more meat on its bones than is normally found with eye candy.

But, and I may be sorely mistaken about this, I thought SC was being sold as a serious strategic level wargame about the European Theater 1939 - 1945. That is the way the banner reads on this site. That is what avid historical gamers who I generally interact with ask when I mention the game.

Now, that is a different standard to shoot for than just an amusing little game to play on the side. On the fun game scale, SC gets an A. On the serious wargame scale, SC gets a gentlemen's C at best.

On another game site (ConsimWorld Discussion Board, computer gaming folder), an avid wargamer asked for opinions about SC. I have been pondering what my response should be to someone who really cares about realism (and I mean realism not detail). I want to recommend SC and say that it is a great value for $25. But, while SC is alot of fun, at present, I think that a gamer who games to get a moderately realistic computer wargame -- may very well be disappointed. Someone who just wants to have fun playing a vaguely WW II game, will like it just fine even though I still have some reservations about play balance. But, learning the game just playing the AI is a blast.

[ October 06, 2002, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Jeff Gilbert]

Okay, I've lurked here reading and now I will actually write something. I will paraphrase two earlier posts that I must take some exception to.

1st was words to the effect that the German generals drew up and executed the war plans. Although this technically is true I would direct your attention to the fact that they were having bad plans dictated that they had to try to carry out. The two most obvious examples are Hitler's insistance on advancing on multiple objectives without adequate forces, [ie. Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad] and the "hold at all costs" orders that doomed the 6th Army in Stalingrad among other smaller disasters [destruction of Army Group Center being one].

A very good writting on Hitler's interference and complete bypass os OKW can be found in "Lost Victories" by Field Marshal Eric Von Manstien.

2nd - Some French person saying, "war is much too important to be left to the generals." I think that the French war record since the 30 years war speaks volumes.

[docd]

Agreed 100% to Jeff Gilbert. Moreover, don´t think that Hitler was the military genius, the game wants us to suggest. If I enter a shop with a machinegun, I can also win the counter in one turn. At the moment I enter I declare war, shoot someone and take the money.

This is how Hitler acted several times, also telling the lie, that the other side did the first shot or prepared for war.

With his generals he had terrible fights about operational decisions. He was too selfish and ignorant to agree to different but better opinions than his own. He blamed them before others and nervwrecked them. Many generals were killed as traitors.

Hitler immolated MILLIONS of people even at a stage of war, when victory was impossible to achieve.

And in the last minutes of his live, he blamed the german army and the people for the loss of the war.

Hitler was a great talented criminal without scruples who installed a regime of terror. His main talent was to act black and tell the world it´s white. And he believed it himself till the end. Thinking his engine was the love to the german population.

But the truth is that mainly because of him

1. 55 million people died,

2. his enemy - the Stalinismus grew stronger than ever after WWII,

3. germany needed millions immigrants from in his mind inferior races

4. the germans were blamed all over the world because of their war-crimes

5. million dollars had and still have to be spend for reparation on jews etc.

6. many nations and people (for example the jews) still hate the germans for what happened and make even the younger generation feel guilty (and pay)

So never forget such things, when you play that game. Don´t glamourize a man who has lost all aim and goals.

(I think it is no question that those goals were all crazy, but even if someone could agree to Hitlers goals he must admit, that Hitler created exactly the opposite of what he wanted, and that can never be called "genius" !!!)

[Randell Daigre]

Sogard:

I *have* gotten the point of what you've been saying. I've mentioned it in each of my posts. So I put the question to you again: What, exactly, is it that you seek to get out of a "serious" wargame, other than fun and an intellectual challenge?

In other words: What actual function does realism and historical accuracy play for you other than the fact that you consider these things to make a game more fun or challenging?

Do you think you are conducting some sort of "serious" historical study by playing such games?

BTW I understand your view that this game needs some work before it could be considered historically accurate. For what it's worth, I agree.

[Randell Daigre]

docd:

Don't mistake sogard's comments about Hiter for admiration. I've personally seen the man rake someone over the coals for having a tag-line that glorified the exploits of an SS tank officer. He's no Nazi-lover.

I agree with your refutation of his claims of Hitler's cleverness, however. It doesn't take a "genius" to figure out that taking on your enemies one at a time is the best way to do it. I think that Hitler's success in that area had a lot more to do with France and Britain's (understanable) reluctance to get into another big war than any special skills on Hitler's part.

[Randell Daigre]

Jeff:

First of all: Hitler. Personally, I lean toward the opinion that some of Hitler's actions caused nearly insurmountable problems in the German war effort. However, many people point out that those who espouse this view have a tendency to use sources which have a vested interest in throwing the lion's share of the blame on Hitler rather than the OKW. A case in point can be seen in your own post:

A very good writting on Hitler's interference and complete bypass os OKW can be found in "Lost Victories" by Field Marshal Eric Von Manstien.

Field Marshal Eric Von Manstein was hardly going to blame himself for what happened. The contention is that since some of the OKW generals survived the war and Hitler did not, our ability to get a balanced view on the subject is limited. The more dedicated enemies of the OKW call this a classic case of "blame the dead guy".

Secondly: Clemenceau. Once again, I disagree with Clemenceau in general principle.

Yeah, because civilians handle the whole thing sooo much better (of course Clemenceau had to deal with *French* generals ).

However, if you take Clemenceau's remark in context, he did have a good point (kind of). Clemenceau was talking about the fact that the armies of Europe at the beginning of WWI all had war plans which only allowed them the option to attack their neighbors, not to defend against them. Clemenceau felt that this had doomed them all to an inevitable war. Of course, this view completely ignores the responsibility of civilian authorities to oversee strategic planning. It also ignores the fact that the civilian authorities failed to leave themselves with any other diplomatic option than a declaration of war.

[hEad]

------------------------------------

docd:

Don't mistake sogard's comments about Hiter for admiration. I've personally seen the man rake someone over the coals for having a tag-line that glorified the exploits of an SS tank officer. He's no Nazi-lover.

--------------------------------------

Actually, this rake by sogard was quite amusing.. considering the fact that the US gave sanctuary to nazi scientists after WWII - refer to operation paper clip, and the fact that the US comandeered all the scientific knowledge obtained by the jap bio scientists in unit 731.. which of course was of insurmountable advantage to the develoment of the US's very own bio weapons programs, which were extensivly tested throughout the korean war and beyond.. don't blame the soldier, blame the orders..

but back to point, the genius of hitler was his fundamental understanding of the human mechanism, If his ego was contained to the civilian aspects of germany, the economy, the organisation of labour, the motivation of the people.. with the military aspect left to a majority of very competent generals, well, history is full of speculation

[Jeff Gilbert]

Randall,

Your point is well taken. However, in reading Von Manstein, he does take the blame in his own failings. But also points out that decisions made by Hitler were not always open for debate. On numerous occasions he argued peronally with Hitler ... won some, lost some ... and this friction ultimately cost him his command. I don't beleive his is a case of "blame the dead guy."

Side note: healthy discorse like this is very refreshing and welcome.

[Randell Daigre]

The problem with genius leaders (and leaders who *think* they're geniuses) is that they think they are smart enough to do everything themselves. They don't listen to advisors. They have a tendency to pick "advisors" who will carry out their orders, rather than offer expert opinions (they don't think they *need* expert opinions).

I think the best qualifications for national leaders are strong character and good judgement: Strong character to help assure that decisions made are ethical, and good judgement to help assure that they can choose the best of the options presented to them by their advisors.

This is not to say that an idiot could handle the job, just someone who is "dumb" enough to understand that nobody is intelligent enough to be an expert in every field. That's why we have experts, isn't it? God save us all from "geniuses" with large armies to play with.

P.S.- I could put down here a list of former world leaders (aside from Hitler) who I think fall into this category, but that could get *really* messy.

P.P.S.- The Von Manstein book sounds intriguing. I'll have to give it a whirl if my History and Philosophy (and don't even get me started on those bastards in the Political Science department :mad: ) professors ever ease up on their reading lists. Oh well, maybe during the winter break.

[ October 07, 2002, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

[Randell Daigre]

hEad:

Yeah, I thought sogard's rake was a bit heavy-handed, too, but his heart was in the right place. The actions the US government took after the war don't justify the actions taken by the SS or unit 731 during the war. Nor are they any reason not to condemn them. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a fine sentiment, but not a very practical one. A certain amount of hypocracy is unavoidable in government. The difference is that people who disagree with US biological warfare experiments don't become the next test subject.

I agree with your assessment of Hitler. He knew what buttons to press on the German people and he pressed them.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Rouge:

Hitler wassnt even in a front line infantry regiment. He had trouble in his early reign from his officers stating that he was only a corporal and never offically made chief of staff.

I'd be interested to hear your definition of a 'front line Infantry Regt' -

Hitler volunteered at age 25 by enlisting in a Bavarian Regiment. After its first engagement against the British and Belgians near Ypres, 2500 of the 3000 men in the Hitler's regiment were killed, wounded or missing. Hitler escaped without a scratch. Throughout most of the war, Hitler had great luck avoiding life threatening injury. More than once he moved away from a spot where moments later a shell exploded killing or wounding everyone.

Hitler, by all accounts, was an unusual soldier with a sloppy manner and unmilitary bearing. But he was also eager for action and always ready to volunteer for dangerous assignments even after many narrow escapes from death.

Corporal Hitler was a dispatch runner, taking messages back and forth from the command staff in the rear to the fighting units near the battlefield. During lulls in the fighting he would take out his watercolors and paint the landscapes of war.

Hitler, unlike his fellow soldiers, never complained about bad food and the horrible conditions or talked about women, preferring to discuss art or history. He received a few letters but no packages from home and never asked for leave. His fellow soldiers regarded Hitler as too eager to please his superiors, but generally a likable loner notable for his luck in avoiding injury as well as his bravery.

On October 7, 1916, Hitler's luck ran out when he was wounded in the leg by a shell fragment during the Battle of the Somme. He was hospitalized in Germany. It was his first time away from the front after two years of war.

In August 1918, he received the Iron Cross first class, a rarity for foot soldiers. Despite his good record and a total of five medals, he remained a corporal. Due to his unmilitary appearance and odd personality, his superiors felt he lacked leadership qualities and thought he would not command enough respect as a sergeant.

In October 1918, he was temporarily blinded by a British chlorine gas attack near Ypres.

Adolf Hitler was a brave man, a nucking futter, but a brave man.

Much as we would like it to be different, brave men are not always nice ones, nor are they necessarily sane.

Revising history to attempt to change Hitlers WW1 past is as unwise as pretending the holocaust never happened.

[Edwin]

Much as we would like it to be different, brave men are not always nice ones, nor are they

necessarily sane.

Revising history to attempt to change Hitlers WW1 past is as unwise as pretending the holocaust never happened.

Uncanny, I was going to post the same reply yesterday but decided against it. It is always worth stating the facts.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Randell Daigre:

Sogard:

I *have* gotten the point of what you've been saying. I've mentioned it in each of my posts. So I put the question to you again: What, exactly, is it that you seek to get out of a "serious" wargame, other than fun and an intellectual challenge?

In other words: What actual function does realism and historical accuracy play for you other than the fact that you consider these things to make a game more fun or challenging?

Do you think you are conducting some sort of "serious" historical study by playing such games?

BTW I understand your view that this game needs some work before it could be considered historically accurate. For what it's worth, I agree.

A serious question Randell and I will attempt to provide a brief, yet, serious reply.

My interest in gaming stems mostly from my interest in history, politics, econmics and government. I read history because I believe that what is past; is prologue. In order to understand what kind of society we live in today, I think one has to have a basic understanding of the past.

If you read a fair amount of history, professional historians are very good at describing events; but, most professional historians tend to leave their narrative to a description of what happened. Many have a great deal of difficulty in even being able to describe WHY a certain event occured (considering the discussion speculative). A few like to attempt to describe causation; but, this form of analysis is sometimes very controversial. History books have limited aids when you are reading them. Some very good histories have little if anything in way of maps, or tables of organization or other supporting materials which tell the reader the basic concepts in the book (what a Corps or Division of this period looked like).

Now, the interesting thing about a game is that a game desinger has to synthasize much of the same information contained in a good history and quantify it. First, any decent game is going to give you a good map of the theater of operations. I have to constantly consult an atlas or two with almost every history I read because the there are no maps in the book or the map(s) provided lack detail which helps make the narrative make sense.

The game designer has to determine what features on a map are important. Even STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) does this when it presents the geography of Europe with the detail that is imporant to a game of this scale.

Next, the game designer has to quantify what the actors (the units and significant leaders) look like. Try to get that out of almost any history. What was the relative fighting power of a panzer division versus and American armor division? A good game has to tell you this.

A good game design, by the way its rules work, also has to identify the crucial factors which influenced a particular war, campaign or battle. If logistics was they key (in the designer's mind), the game design will reveal this.

Thus, a good game design will reveal a treasure load of information about WHY an event occured that is remarkably difficult to come by with just a read of a history of the subject.

Finally, a good game design is going to give the gamer one important sense which is almost never found in any history book and that is: what was the probability that any given outcome would turn out the way it did. Just ask most historians, what was the likelyhood that the South could have gained its independance in the American Civil War and you will see what I mean. At best, you get a very controversial response; many times with well respected authorities disagreeing on the answer.

A gamer gets a pretty good sense of this by the way that a game is designed. If all the BLUE units have a strength of ten and all the GRAY units have a strength of five (and all other things being equal), the gamer is going to have a much better sense of the WHY of events that what most narratives will tell the reader.

In the end, I am not foolish enough to believe because I play a game with cardboard pieces or watch units move on my computer screen, that I have experienced war. However, I do think that a good game can help me to understand what is important in the manner in which war has worked in the past. It does not present the carnage, the destruction or even Patton's view that war was the greatest endeavor open to man. But, it does provide useful insight that is difficult to obtain just about any other way because the synthesis that a game designer has to go through tells the gamer a great deal about the whys of history (or for a future conflict). It is the reason why military institutions and intelligence agencies game on a regular basis in order to inform their members about the subject. It can also be intellectually stimulating and fun!

[sogard]

In keeping with my last post, which one book would you recommend to be read in order to get the maximum enjoyment out of STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC)?

Which movie or documentary would you recommend to maximize enjoyment of SC?

[Randell Daigre]

Sogard:

So what you're saying is that a realistically designed wargame gives you two major things all in one place:

1) A great deal of information which would usually take a lot of reserch to compile.

2) A graphically represented (if somewhat rough and questionable) analysis of actual or potential events.

All of which can be gotten out of normal historical study, but only at the expense of a *lot* more time and effort.

Let me know if I've got that right.

[Hubert Cater]

OK guys I think there have been some interesting posts here for both sides but I believe it's time to move on or perhaps move this discussion to the General Forums.

Hubert

[sogard]

At Hubert's request I have moved the discussion to a folder (the same name as here -- ARMCHAIR GENERALS) in the general discussion area.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by sogard:

In keeping with my last post, which one book would you recommend to be read in order to get the maximum enjoyment out of STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC)?

Which movie or documentary would you recommend to maximize enjoyment of SC?

Gerhard Weinberg "A World At Arms"

Cambridge Press A World At Arms

I have this book and believe that it describes the grand politico-economic-military strategy in a very fresh and insightful way. It would be perfect for the SC player.

As for movie/documentarys, to this day nothing beats the "World At War" series narrated by Laurence Olivier, which was produced in the late 60s and aired first in 1973. The documentary is quite long (2000 MINUTES, or over 22 hours) and comes in segments, but fully boxed sets are available for around $100.

[ October 10, 2002, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]