"Nazi Fan Boy" Scenarios

[JasonC]

Xenophile - what is missing from your otherwise reasonable enough take on it is any appreciation of just how effortless it was, how little of conquest in any traditional sense was required. In say South Africa, conquest really was required. It was not an empty place. In India even more so. Australia is a much closer case, but there the settling population was also miniscule.

There simply were only tiny numbers of natives, compared to the new arrivals. The settlers outnumber them clear across the continent when just a fringe on the eastern seaboard. US population then rises 15 fold in about 3 generations. The "odds" were high enough you could "win" the "conquest" by walking past the other guy, ignoring him. If he left you alone, that was quite sufficient. In two generations he'd be well and truly swamped, a tiny remant in a sea of newcomers.

Any native who wanted to stop the process, therefore, had to take the initiative and start things. The settlers did not remotely need to push the indians off their land to have it. The indians didn't use a tenth of it, they didn't physically *see* a tenth of it in a year. All the settlers had to do was plow a field and set up a house, and the land was theirs. In a native wanted to stop that, he'd have to go and crack heads. Most didn't care. A few went and cracked heads, and found 1 to 100 odds just as daunting when the chosen field was violence instead of simple living.

The only place this really changed was in the high plains in the second half of the 1800s, as railroads opened the interior to large scale ranching. Then there were newcomers would wanted large areas of land that the indians were actually using. They hunted buffalo far more efficiently, too efficiently to leave large herds of them. They replaced those herds with cattle, which they raised so efficiently there were far more of them than of buffalo before.

But the indians didn't own the cattle, and others did. They hunted it just the same, and got denounced as thieves for it. That led to range wars etc, and when those escalated the cavalry came in. But it was all nearly effortless, simply because the disparity in numbers was so absolute. The settlers did not need to take the initiative in wrongdoing or violence. It was sufficient that they walk around and leave their footprint, as it were. If the indians had all left them alone, they still would have been completely assimilated and swamped, without a shot being fired.

Needless to say, not all did. They got assimilated anyway, for the same overriding reason. Urban and farm populations simply support scads more human beings than hunter-gather existence possibly can.

[Joachim]

Here is yours:

Originally posted by JasonC:

Anyone who simply accepts whatever his culture tells him is right, as right, is an immoral human being.

Anyone who accepts on any authority, actions like those of the Nazis, is an immoral human being. Whether he performs them or excuses them.

And immoral human beings are inferior to moral ones. Moral behavior is choiceworthy, morals are a principle of preference and rejection. Morals cannot govern men's conduct if they do not accept some behaviors and reject others. And instead trying to reject morality or condemnation, does not make all equal. It simply excuses the concrete injustices of Nazis et al.

You define immoral. You judge about immoral. Who gives you the right to define? Who gives you the right to judge? Do you simply accept what your culture tells you? Or are you any form of god?

[JasonC]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Not a mystery. Morality is real, objective, accessible to all men at all times, and so well known it is utterly commonplace.

It takes the accumulated sophisticated rottenness of centuries of philosophical drivel to convince anybody otherwise.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The settlers did not need to take the initiative in wrongdoing or violence.

Yet they did! Because for the settlers as a whole, acting like the Borg, it might have been enough to conquer the west in tidal waves. Just moving thru the Indians. But individual settlers wanted to be there first - to get he biggest and best chunk of the land. And it was neccessary for them to incite violence to speed up things - before all the other "settlers" were on the same starting line when the land rush was opened. Your land was much more valuable when the Indians were far away. The "felt" security was bigger when the Indians were far away. So support the call for the cavalry if there is a reason. Look away if somebody "creates" that reason.

You might argue about settlers needing land to produce grain as they need to support a population. But if you have a few tons more gold is not that important for the mere survival of a society. It is important for the wealth of a society. If you have only half the gold - double the value and the currency system will still be intact. So no justification to conquer the Black hills. Yet the gold diggers entered. None of them waited a few years till the Indians might be assimilated. The gold diggers carried weapons.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I can imagine that. Europeans would have enjoyed welcoming the Indians in Europe, turning the Europeans into hunter gatherers. Scores of Europeans perish? Nevermind. A few of them will survive and the remnants are alowed to live with the Indians. Some of them inside their tribes, melting together, others forming their own tribes.

Or a bit more drastic: If I'd like to get f***ed by somebody I f*** her.

Not a mystery. Morality is real, objective, accessible to all men at all times, and so well known it is utterly commonplace.

Yes, sure. That's why all cultures coexist in perfect harmony.

I prefer "Freedom ends where the freedom of somebody else starts." over "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The trouble with my line is that it is hard to decide where the borderline is. Your line completely lacks the opinion of the other guy on the matter and draws the borderline in your favor.

[Runyan99]

My philosophy is simply that the human animal has killed one another and fought over scarce resources since the first Neandertal picked up a rock and bashed his rival in the head.

Once you accept this one crucial fact, that the human animal fights and kills in it's own interest, then incidents like Native Americans killing European colonists and Nazi's killing Jews and Slavs, these things become very simple to understand. It's simply the way of the world. It's nature.

Arguing about it is pointless. It's simply posturing after the fact. Trying to position one killer as 'good' and the other killer as 'bad' is laughable. Both men are killers. They can't help it.

To my mind, you might as well argue that the Lion is immoral for killing the Gazelle.

Whether I take a rifle and kill a Nazi, or a Native American takes an arrow and kills me, it makes no difference. All the same. Just humans fighting over stuff.

That's how I see the world. History has taught me this much.

[ April 13, 2006, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[JasonC]

Cultures do not all exist in perfect harmony, not because they do not understand morality, but because they find it difficult or inconvenienent. More precisely, some interested elements among most cultures do so, and try to win a license to engage in immoral conduct by dispensing guff, or by intimidation etc.

Most of those doing so know exactly what they are doing. There is no substantive disagreement involved. They see morality, they understand morality, and they choose evil actions instead, with open eyes. There may be others who are more simply misguided, but most active immorality in the world is willfully indifferent, if not actively hostile, to morality.

As for your understanding of freedom, if you think that way then you are morally obligated to treat others so, according them a sphere of personal freedom into which you do not encroach.

They aren't morally obligated to treat you that way, however. Not as reciprocity, not due to your transcendent wisdom or any legislative authority you have over them, since you don't have any. They are the judges of how they ought to treat you.

Personally, the freedom schtick leaves me cold. It assumes the only difficulty it to get it so my own decisions affect my life, as opposed to other people's. When the real problem is to get not mine, but the right ones.

And to me it is not at all a matter of "drawing lines". It isn't a peace treaty between selfish rogues. It is about seeing what is right. Men are capable of idealism, and if they weren't you'd be living in the sort of hell some still do live in. If you think you can run an army on self-regarding libertarian principles, for instance, sorry, doesn't remotely work.

As for how cooperative and other-regarding you are in your sex life, for pity's sake please keep it to yourself.

As for natives going to Europe, they are free to of course. Perhaps they will, or others. Certainly the Germans have decided not to exist in a few generations, and somebody might as well use the land. Could change their minds tomorrow, to be sure.

As for land being more valuable or safer when indians are farther away, why do you suppose that might be? Might some of the young hotheads not have viewed the ends of noses and morality on quite libertarian lines? Gee, maybe actual threats of violence - indeed, violent acts - were occasionally perpetrated against the settlers by indians living nearby.

And is that supposed to be excusable? Are the settlers supposed to say, "oops, my bad, should have stayed in Europe. Sure my 6 year old son deserved to have half his head chopped off and worn and a belt buckle, because gosh, his grandfather has skin of a different color and was born some distance to the east". Oops, maybe not. Maybe the desire to have people actually obey the law isn't so oppressive and terrible a thing. And maybe the decline in public ax murderings among a segment of the population that is still here and doing fine, does not constitute genocide.

[JasonC]

Runyan 99 - and when I see people with those maxims, I draw my revolver.

Why isn't in natural for Germans to kill other Germans who try to boss them around? What so much more natural about killing Jews?

This should be good.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Why isn't in natural for Germans to kill other Germans who try to boss them around? What so much more natural about killing Jews?

They are both equally natural. I don't see the difference. It's human against human, group against group, interest against interest.

I'm sure if I did some reading of Medieval history, I can find some examples of Germans killing Germans.

[JasonC]

You hardly have to go back to medieval history, lol.

Yes war is a perennial and only the dead have seen the end of it. But the reason they matter is they actually do have morally different sides, and whether you live in a decent place or in a place where public torture is the leading sport depends on whether the decent guys win.

[Runyan99]

Yes but you see, everybody thinks they are the 'decent guys'.

The winners of the conflict then shape the morality, defining the 'decent guys' after the fact.

So, it's a human construct, this morality.

Unless you are a theist, and then you believe it is beamed to us from the cosmos. And that's fine. I just don't think so.

In any case, I find Nazi bashing just as tiresome as Nazi apologists. Even more intolerable are the arguments over which tribe of humans had a 'moral' right to the North American continent. That one really gets my goat.

But, I'll step aside so you and Joachim can hash that one out some more.

[Bannon DC]

Billy --

I see you're new around here... "welcome to the forum" and all the stuff. How rude of us not to say "howdy." Equally, you have had to ask your question three times.

Originally posted by Billy Prior:

Personally, I'm uncomfortable about ever playing as the Axis (and this is not to say that I shouldn't feel uncomfortable about playing as the Soviets given the character of Stalin's regime), and haven't modified my edition of CMBB (or CMAK) to display swastikas for this very reason.

I'd very much like guidance on 'scenarios to avoid' that are ahistorical vehicles for neo nazism.

Billy Prior

This thread seems to have struck a few nerves. Thanks to everyone who has posted, great to hear your views. I believe that many of the opinions expressed are irreconciliable in that they are expressions of philosophical differences. On a practical level, I've learned I never want to play 'Wittmann in the East'. Any other scenarios out there that are so unbalanced AND ahistorical that I should avoid them?

Thanks in anticipation

[Runyan99]

Hi, my name is Runyan99.

I just started playing Rome:Total War, but I've never felt comfortable playing as the Romans. What with all the killing and raping and taxation and exploitation of native peoples. I've always felt a little 'icky' about playing as the Romans.

Worse, I feel that the whole game is designed with a pro-Roman bias. I think maybe the campaign game was designed by some Roman-lover, who just wanted to make a game where the player could roll over the Carthaginians and the Gauls and the Teutons in a masturbatory Roman loving orgy.

I bet there are closet wannabe Romans who march around in their basements wearing a lorica segmenta and saying 'Veni, Vidi, Vici'. And stuff. Sick bastards.

Anyway, can anyone suggest a faction I could play for a good balanced game, other than the evil Romans?

[JasonC]

Get barbarian invasion and play the Franks. lol.

As for those who try to pretend killing is normal and morality a crock, I'll show up at your house tomorrow armed and see if you believe it. Cause I think you are just jawing.

[Chipaev]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Hi, my name is Runyan99.

I just started playing Rome:Total War, but I've never felt comfortable playing as the Romans. What with all the killing and raping and taxation and exploitation of native peoples. I've always felt a little 'icky' about playing as the Romans.

Worse, I feel that the whole game is designed with a pro-Roman bias. I think maybe the campaign game was designed by some Roman-lover, who just wanted to make a game where the player could roll over the Carthaginians and the Gauls and the Teutons in a masturbatory Roman loving orgy.

I bet there are closet wannabe Romans who march around in their basements wearing a lorica segmenta and saying 'Veni, Vidi, Vici'. And stuff. Sick bastards.

Anyway, can anyone suggest a faction I could play for a good balanced game, other than the evil Romans?

bwahahaha! Runyan, you are great.

[JasonC]

I also notice that all the murder is natural, morality is a crock, please don't denounce my lovely Nazis types who claim they find it all tiresome, are in here posting about how tiresome they find it after reading 5 pages, instead of off playing my new scenarios or commenting on them. Or anybody else's. If you just want to play CM, why in heck aren't you playing CM, or even talking about it?

[Chipaev]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I also notice that all the murder is natural, morality is a crock, please don't denounce my lovely Nazis types who claim they find it all tiresome, are in here posting about how tiresome they find it after reading 5 pages, instead of off playing my new scenarios or commenting on them. Or anybody else's. If you just want to play CM, why in heck aren't you playing CM, or even talking about it?

Well, personally, my arm gets tired sieg-heilling every time I press go. ESPECIALLY on 40+ turn maps. I come here to rest my arm before going down to the basement and goose-stepping for a couple hours naked, in boots,a german helmet, and a swastika arm-band.

[Runyan99]

I'm waiting for CMC.

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by Chipaev:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

I also notice that all the murder is natural, morality is a crock, please don't denounce my lovely Nazis types who claim they find it all tiresome, are in here posting about how tiresome they find it after reading 5 pages, instead of off playing my new scenarios or commenting on them. Or anybody else's. If you just want to play CM, why in heck aren't you playing CM, or even talking about it?

Well, personally, my arm gets tired sieg-heilling every time I press go. ESPECIALLY on 40+ turn maps. I come here to rest my arm before going down to the basement and goose-stepping for a couple hours naked, in boots,a german helmet, and a swastika arm-band. </font>

[Cuirassier]

Surely we have better things to do...

[LongLeftFlank]

Originally posted by Joachim:

You define immoral. You judge about immoral. Who gives you the right to define? Who gives you the right to judge? Do you simply accept what your culture tells you? Or are you any form of god?

I long ago accepted JasonC as my personal lord and saviour. Although he's more of an Old Testament smiting and fulminating type of prophet.

Jason, speaking of (meta)physics, if you ever came into physical contact with Noam Chomsky, do you think an enormous explosion would result as you annihilated one another? Or would a rift simply open in the space-time continuum (you know, the one you apparently employ in order to do all this writing).

Nunc dimittis

P.S. Yes, yes, I know it's Holy Thursday and I'm blaspheming. But I gave up a whole load of stuff -- including CM -- for Lent.

[Krautman]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Isn't anyone going to give the answers to my physics quiz?

Your showing off is quite annoying. If you wanted to assert there is no such thing as a climate change made by man which will slowly make the earth uninhabitable then fine. If you wanted to assert something else then also fine, I didn't really read all the stuff you wrote. You're an argument-by-exhaustion-guy.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Krautman - you are welcome to attempt genocide against the modern world any time you like, (or to step off a cliff, come to that). We'll just see you off too.

Thanks, what a nice thing to say. If holding that man-made progress was not entirely beneficial for humanity and the earth as such means one is inadvertedly in favour of the annihilation of the human race, as you seem to think, then I'm probably not the only one who should either attempt genocide or jump off a cliff.

[ April 14, 2006, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Krautman ]

[phil102]

Jason, you said

"Personally, on the subject of the Russians, I condemn both regimes as ruthless murderers and then regard the put upon Russian common people, who suffered the most from both, as the true heros of the war in the east. "

In my opinion it is impossible to read any good quality, balanced historical narratives of the Soviet-German conflict and not come to this conclusion. It is most clearly expressed by Clark in "Barbarossa". This book is a benchmark for a general overview of the conflict and should be read by all with an interest in the war.

The issue of the German plans for the colonisation of the east is explored in some detail in Rhodes book "Masters of Death". Although this book is primarily about the Eintzgruppen it devotes much time to Himmler's desire to colonise the east in a similar way to the 19th century colonisation of the Americas and Africa.

On a separate note, I have often been appalled at the abrasive language and personalised attacks that are a regular occurence on this forum. This type of language deters many people from posting and, in my opinion, the forum moderators should play a more active role in discouraging it.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for your understanding of freedom, if you think that way then you are morally obligated to treat others so, according them a sphere of personal freedom into which you do not encroach.

They aren't morally obligated to treat you that way, however. Not as reciprocity, not due to your transcendent wisdom or any legislative authority you have over them, since you don't have any. They are the judges of how they ought to treat you.

That freedom thing means you have to think about the others values. You don't judge him with your fixed standards. You have to find out what he wants. Then you either meet somewhere in the middle - or you have to resort to violence (in absence of an unbiased court that rules the thing). Forcing you to think also means weighing your loss if you let the other invade your sphere to the gains and losses of both parties if you won't give up your freedom.

If the other crosses a threshold that is widely accepted in both cultures - the resulting war is usually considered as "just" by "related" cultures.

If cultures are different, it is much more complicated. But it helps to declare one side as subhuman, animal, barbarian or whatever to ensure you are the one setting the standards from moral higher ground.

@Billy:

Sorry for hijacking your thread. Welcome aboard.

I partly blame the uproar here on the title of your threat. Calling somebody a Nazi is probably the worst thing you can do over here. Given that even one of Andreas scens was classed as "Nazi fanboy" proves to me that the guidelines for deciding whether a scen is a "Nazi fanboy scen" are broken. Cause if a scen author made a Nazi fanboy scen, he is a Nazi fanboy - or a Nazi. Trying to apply the rules automatically leads to personal attacks.

Maybe you could try with a different threat title. More like "Scens that appear absolutely unbalanced in favor of the Axis".

Gruß

Joachim

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Joachim:

Given that even one of Andreas scens was classed as "Nazi fanboy" proves to me that the guidelines for deciding whether a scen is a "Nazi fanboy scen" are broken.

Hi Joachim

While I don't disagree with your point, Jason did not actually accuse me or the authors of the other scenarios of that.

Originally posted by JasonC:

I'll comment on a couple of other scenarios. (Note, all this is spoiler stuff). These are not the worst, they are the first in my directory. The problems they have are not all caused by the cause above, let alone by actual pro German sympathy, let alone by such sympathy motivated by active support for Nazi politics.

At least that is how I read his preface (which I discovered on second reading of his post - it was disguised by excessive verbiage ).

All the best

Andreas