"Nazi Fan Boy" Scenarios

[JasonC]

Andreas - correct. I thought I made pretty clear that I see the general issue as the effect of mostly German sources on the war in the east, especially the early impressions of it, operating through scenario designer expectations. Interacting, certainly, with other design weaknesses many designers have.

For Joachim (or anyone still remotely interested in some of the stuff we covered) - you asked at one point for more evidence of the warlike, violent nature of indian society, and several times mentions the black hills stuff. The black hills feature prominently in Sioux victimology in particular.

The name Sioux is not originally self-given, but is what they were called by other tribes, and means "snake". (Apache, incidentally, is similarly given by outsiders, and means "enemy"). Other tribes' hand sign for the Sioux was a slitting motion across the throat, and referred to their preferred way of mutilating the corpses of the fallen, beheading.

The Sioux took the black hills from the Kiowa in the late 1700s, roughly the time of the US revolution, with wholesale slaughter. They drove the Crow out of the Powder River area only after the US civil war. In other words, they were recent occupiers by genocidal conquest. They also fought continual wars with the Blackfeet, Crow, Shoshoni, Nez Perce, and Chippewa.

[Shmavis]

Well, this thread has certainly touched a nerve with people.

*Ahem* Jason, I've posted a review of 1SS Initial Assault at TPG. I now return you all to your spirited debate.

[TheNathan]

Well, as much as I normally agree with JasonC, he might be a touch off-base with the whole native american vs. european thing. By off-base, I don't mean his conclusions are incorrect, as he's absolutely right about the inevitability of the european conquest of north america. What I find somewhat disturbing is his one-sided take on it, and to a large extent, his callousness in how he views the state of the native american tribes, their customs, and their defeat by the hands of the europeans.

JasonC seems to be somewhat shocked that the natives actually fought against the europeans in a violent manner, and in the face of an encroaching culture that trumped whatever the natives had in every concievable way, eventually the only recourse for the native american tribes was violent resistance or assimilation. One's way of life tends to be held very dear to most members of a society. Customs, establishments and personal connections within that society make up a large portion of a person's psyche, and it really becomes part of that person. When a particular way of life is threatened, people almost feel personally assaulted, and faced with the proposition that everything that they know and hold dear may (or will) be torn away from them or changed entirely tends to drive most people into a violent reactionary mode of behaviour.

It is very easy to sit back and say "Oh, they have it better now, we were right" when you are not only seperated by the passage of time, but with the benefit of being on the winning side. To illustrate my point:

Imagine an alien culture came to earth driven by the desire for earth-like planets to colonize (A relative commodity in of itself). They colonize a small part of the earth with the OK of whatever world governments are willing, and establish themselves, maybe with our help.

However, it quickly becomes apparent that not only are they so much more advanced than us that our assimilation is a imminent conclusion, but there are lots more of them than we realize, in fact, there's so many they outnumber us at least 20-1.

Faced with the prospect of human culture being effectively desttroyed by these newcomers, what do you think most humans are going to do? Why, I bet a few human hotheads are going to pick a fight with the aliens and get alot of humans killed. Why? Because they are reacting to the fact their way of life is going to disappear forever, and they want to hold on to it, because that is what they know.

Given this situation, Jason, what would you do? Would you simply face the inevitable and embrace this alien culture, or would you try and preserve the culture you grew up in and hold dear, and fight these invaders.

[Hammer-n-Sickle]

I vote for spelling and grammar lessons for all.

[Rob Ross]

Whoa this topic flew didn't it! Before all the Native American stuff kicked off I'd like to respond to Bogdan & Sir 76mm.

76 - We are meandering around the grey area of what each individual considers to be morally important. To me the 20th century witnessed so many godawful despots who were prepared to persecute some proportion of their population to maintain power that Stalin's persecution of what, 10%?, unfortunately seems almost par for the course.

Where the Nazis differed was that they aimed to murder 100% of a racial group because they wanted to, and who knows where it would have ended.

In the end our opinions are seperated only by shades of grey.

Bogdan - A genocide is a genocide. It IS motivated by religious and racial criteras. The deportation of Tartars following possible collaboration with the Nazis is not equivalent to an ongoing systematic murder of Jews purely on racial grounds. If Stalin really had it in for the Tartars, he could have overseen their demise years before 1944.

There is no doubt that Hitler had it in for the Jews long before he came to power. Only the precise path of the 'final solution' remained to be found. The disgusting scrambling of his subordinates to please their Fuhrer made sure that the 'final solution' would be inevitable and calamitous.

[JasonC]

TheNathan - I simply deny that having settlers of a different culture come live next to you is so all fired traumatizing to any decent human being.

I understand exactly why the Sioux fought. They enjoyed beating the hell out of militarily lesser tribes around them, and resented the hell out of the requirement that they stop waging profitable war on anybody they pleased whenever they felt like it.

But the Kiowa did not see the issue in quite the same way. Which is why they welcomed the cavalry and worked for it as scouts. There are scores of tribes that had no problem with newcomers or saw enough upside in it that they adapted. Apaches fought, Hopi didn't. Same sort of reasons.

As for those who resisted violently, they can appeal -to- the sword but not -from- the sword. If you choose that route, you take the consequences. Presuming the other guy left you the option not to, which was the case.

A people that is simply persecuted, without having used violence themselves, can appeal from the sword, justly. Call for allies, appeal to the governors of their enemies, or over their heads to their citizens.

A people that wages war can say to heck with appeals, we will instead trust our own right hands. What you can't reasonably do is claim a right to start wars, start them and lose them, and then cry that it is unfair that you didn't win.

If the indians gained some great benefit out of an ability to wage independent war tribe by tribe, then loss of that power might be a tragedy, however inevitable. If those they lost to ground them into dust, then their loss might be a tragedy, however inevitable. But neither is true.

Their private wars brought nothing in human terms by wanton cruelty, and giving them up led to the tragedy that they can weave rugs in old art styles and sing songs about old stories all they like, and also drive pickups and shop at WalMart instead of hunting on foot with stone axes and living (not very long) in tents.

Can Sioux live by preying on Crow, as they once did? No. But then they shouldn't, objectively.

The American society they assimilated into was not Nazi Germany, and attempts to portray it as such are simply mendacious.

[LongLeftFlank]

Originally posted by TheNathan:

JasonC seems to be somewhat shocked that the natives actually fought against the europeans in a violent manner

Not sure that he's represented anywhere that:

(a) being assimilated was anything like a pleasant experience for the aboriginals at the time, or for their immediate descendants

( that it was wholly irrational (as opposed to pointless) of them to fight, given their existing cultural norms, or

© that the settlers/US Government were just nice hardworking Protestants happy to embrace their "red" brethren into the melting pot with open arms as equals so long as they clothed their nakedness, feared Jehovah and tilled the land.

We all know this wasn't the case. Assimilation was a long journey (still ongoing). Up to 1900, unprovoked massacres, forcible evictions and naked land grabs did occur. Numbers of natives died of exposure and neglect when penned into de facto concentration camps.

Well into the 20th century, racial discrimination and the poverty culture made reservations very hard places to escape from for those who couldn't pass for whites. It's only been in the last 20 years or so that most North Americans have felt no stigma (even pride) about revealing native ancestry.

But all that is a LONG LONG LONG way from mass graves, programmed extermination and gas chambers, or the systematic enslavement/rape or death by starvation that was the inevitable fate of overrun groups in prior centuries (are there any aboriginal Celts left in Poland?). In fact, the fate of the North American natives was about as fortunate an outcome as overrun aboriginals got anywhere at the time, excepting perhaps New Zealand and Polynesia (and their intelligentsia ain't thrilled to bits with things either).

[JasonC]

Shmavis - thanks for the report at TPG. I've replied to your posts over there, in the discussions section under 1SS Initial Assault. I agree to your suggestion about a more covered entry area and will look to changing that for a 1.01 version. As for the other suggestions, read my reply.

[76mm]

Rob Ross,

We are probably indeed arguing shades of grey, especially among the more impassioned arguments in this thread.

But I still don't see why Hitler's attempt to kill 100% of a racial group is more evil that Stalin's attempt to kill 100% of an economic class (or for that matter why killing 100% of a racial group is more evil that killing 10% (or whatever) of an entire population). I guess my point is that as far as I'm concerned, Stalin was *pretty much* in the same league as Hitler.

[David I]

JasonC,

While I usually agree with your historical analysis, what about the Cherokee? They assimulated, learned to speak English, wore western clothes, accepted Christianity, published their own newspapers, sent lobbiest to Congress and..... got ****ed for their efforts the moment white people wanted their land. As usual it's not all black and white in History-Land.

DavidI

"Theres a line of Indians leaving Rancho Malario, Making Room for YOU! Here's the beautiful "Trail of Tears Golf Course!"*

*Firesign Theater

[JasonC]

As a group, they got a bum deal, certainly. It was not uncaused. They had their own hotheads. I already recommended the book Trail of Tears, remember? Read the whole thing. It does not whitewash what was done to them, but it also doesn't pretend they were all Rotarians beforehand.

[WimpBastard]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I find this topic to be a bit "out there" myself. While I agree that there are some German fan boys out there, never once have they effected my enjoyment of the Combat Mission series of games. They are easily sidestepped. I have found the people associated with Combat Mission more informative then prejudice. While some may have a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation I find it easily set aside and replaced with my own thoughts on the matter at hand.

In my opinion the German military was more advanced then its opponents for a time. The Germans also built some interesting equipment that I find enjoyable to game with. I also find some Russian and American equipment of interest. Personally I enjoy the fun of Wargaming without any thought wasted on the politics of the era.

I've found Nazi (Or at least German) fanboys have pretty much ruined my enjoyment of WW2 wargaming in general. Hell most any discussion about WW2 tends to be ruined for me as soon as people start raving on about how Germany was light years ahead of everyone and their legions of uberpanzers would have rolled over everyone had Hitler ordered them to lose or some silly crap like that. I recognise the Germans built some pretty out there stuff, but the fanboyism really annoys the hell out of me.

Also my only realy human opponent for a long while in CM was a Nazi (Or at least German) fanboy. Not so much a problem at first since i'm not a fan of playing as the germans, but every single battle i fought was a battle against a King Tiger, Panther, Tiger or some combination of the three, usually accompanied by an elite SS platoon and perhaps an MG42 or two. Against my usual force of a rifle company + supporting medium tanks. I can't say my force selection was always historically accurate or anything, but honestly after facing uber tank after uber tank where my own Shermans/T-34s felt useless i just kinda got bored of CM. Ironicly of course i won most of the battles, in CMBO i would always eventually ambush his ubertank with bazooka teams, and in CMBB with 57mm AT guns (Thanks to JasonC's advice) But it was incredibly repeitative. Worse still, anyone he introduced to the game would inevitably listen to his advice (Or my whining about invulnerable front armour) and take the same uber armour.

So I stopped playing. I still find CM to be the best game out there in terms of wargaming on the PC, but honestly I'm really bloody sick of worrying whether my gunners will hit the bloody thing, or whether my gunners will be lucky enough to receive tungsten ammo.

[JasonC]

WB - Get and play my Operation Uranus scenario pack, stat. It will keep your love of CM alive...

[Abbott]

Jason--- your information is faulty and is only the popular myth put forth by the wasicu (white man). Referring to the “Sioux” in the derogatory as snakes was popular with whites as an attempted (or added) excuse of justification of their policy of annihilation of the Native American peoples.

My wife’s tribe (her documented blood quantum (you see Native American people today are required to have paperwork to prove their heritage) is 50% Ojibwae (Chippewa) and 25% Lakota Sioux) her tribal membership is Ojibwae (Saginaw Chippewa) and her family is part of the Bear Clan. The word “snake” in the Ojibwae language “siu” is pronounced very similar to the word “Sioux”. That is where the confusion lies.

The name Sioux came from the French Canadians who used an abbreviation of the Iroquois compound “nadouéssioux” plus the Ojibwae "siu" by which the Ojibwae tribe and the Ottawa tribe referred to the Dakota peoples (the people to the south and west of them). Whites incorrectly interpret this basing it off of their own cultural disdain for serpents. But it belongs to a time when the Dakota people like many tribes were known to hold the serpent in reverence.

A few notes on the rock (Mount Rushmore) that many Native Americans refer to as “American Graffiti”

The founding fathers on that rock shared common characteristics. All four valued white supremacy and promoted the extirpation of Indian society. The United States' founding fathers were staunchly anti-Indian advocates in that at one time or another, all four provided for genocide against Indian peoples of this hemisphere.

George Washington...

In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack the Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)

In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape", he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as "Town Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)

Thomas Jefferson...

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with "the hatchet". Jefferson continued, "And...if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, " he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". (Ibid)

In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains". One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach". (Ibid)

Abraham Lincoln...

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution, by hanging, of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankato, Minnesota. Most of those executed were holy men or political leaders of their camps. None of them were responsible for committing the crimes they were accused of. Coined as the Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History. (Brown, Dee. BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970. pp. 59-61)

Theodore Roosevelt...

The fourth face you see on that "Stony Mountain" is America's first twentieth century president, alleged American hero, and Nobel peace prize recipient, Theodore Roosevelt. This Indian fighter firmly grasped the notion of Manifest Destiny saying that America's extermination of the Indians and thefts of their lands "was ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable". Roosevelt once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth". (Stannard, Op.Cit.)

The apathy displayed by these founding fathers symbolize the demoralization related to racial superiority. Scholars point toward this racial polarization as evidence of the existence of Eugenics.

Eugenics is a new term for an old phenomena which asserts that Indian people should be exterminated because they are an inferior race of people. Jefferson's suggestion to pursue the Indians to extermination fits well into the eugenistic vision. In David Stannard's study American Holocaust, he writes: "had these same words been enunciated by a German leader in 1939, and directed at European Jews, they would be engraved in modern memory. Since they were uttered by one of America's founding fathers, however...they conveniently have become lost to most historians in their insistent celebration of Jefferson's wisdom and humanity." Roosevelt feared that American upper classes were being replaced by the "unrestricted breeding" of inferior racial stocks, the "utterly shiftless", and the "worthless" (Ibid)

---

"We are survivors," said the soft-spoken 58-year-old descendant of Lakota warriors, Leonard Little Finger. "Ours is a story of pride and survival." (Interestingly enough, the only other people identified popularly, as "survivors" are the people who survived the death camps of Adolf Hitler). The fact that American Indians survived the efforts of the Federal republic to "remove" them absolutely justifies the use of the phrase "survivor," as applied to the Native American people.

Leonard Little Finger's legacy is drenched in the agony of the Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee, and animated with the spirit of a people at one with the sun and stars. Five generations of his family have left him a heritage of both laughter and sorrow. "There's still a grief that I have when I go to Wounded Knee," Little Finger said. "I have this sickness that mankind can do that to one another."

[ April 16, 2006, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Runyan99]

How are we white skinned Americans supposed to respond to your post, Abbot? What are we to do? What am I supposed to feel?

Would you like me to move back to Europe? Shall I curl up in a ball of guilt and self-hate? What is my course of action?

[ April 16, 2006, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[ng cavscout]

There are no black and white answers.

Where the tactics used by European colonizers brutal? Yes.

Where tactics used by the Natives in North and South America brutal, both before and after the arrival of Europeans, against Europeans and other Natives? Yes.

Could the Europeans of achieved their objectives in a more humane way? Definitely.

Is it reasonable or realistic to expect that the Europeans, finding less advanced, at least in technology and warfighting ability, groups of Natives, already weakened by diseases sweeping through their populations, to not attempt to settle lands they saw under utilized by what appeared to be "Savages"? I don't think so.

I fully acknowledge that there are points in the European takeover of North and South America that are shameful. But Humans are Humans, and I don't think any other indigenous group, outnumbered, outtechnologized, outimmunized, has ever been treated any better. Yes, there were many Europeans/Americans that hated the Native Americans and wanted them exterminated, but there were also Europeans/Americans that wanted to help them.

Before anyone accuses me of Racism, I am part Native American myself. I honor and treasure my Blackfoot heritage. But I also have ancestors that were German, French, and Welsh. I acknowledge both the heights and the depths to which my peoples have risen and sunk.

Someone mentioned slavery, and made some comment, I believe, about just how evil Europeans and Americans were for having it exist. If you will recall, Europeans and Americans were the first to outlaw the practice. Slavery still is extant in some areas of Africa and the Middle East. My final point regarding slavery is that the majority of African slaves brought to the U.S. were captured and sold to Whites by other Africans. I recall reading that some African chieftans would go to war specifically to gain prisoners to sell as slaves. Slavery wasn't invented by Europeans, but it was ended by them.

Just my humble 2 cents. Sorry for the run on sentences, I need some sleep.

[Abbott]

Runyan how you respond is of no consequence to me. I have nothing against you personally. I am answering Jason's silly posts. I do not think that anyone will come tear your children from your family or home and send them away or remove you from your homeland then tell you “it is for your/their own good” as Jason has posted.

As I said earlier in this thread it was a dark time as were many times for many peoples.

What I do think of as important is that some folks realize that there is more to the history then the popular clean-up version of the story.

God bless you and yours on this wonderful holiday.

[ April 16, 2006, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[LongLeftFlank]

Abbott, you argue your side as well as I've seen it argued, but you are engaging in hyperbole, however sincere and visceral your feeling.

It may well be right to reach for harsher words than "assimilation" to describe the privations endured by Native Americans from 1500-1920 or so as they were encircled, displaced, at times killed/caused to die, and universally marginalized, but GENOCIDE is simply not the correct word to apply relative to the real genocides of history.

And selective quotes from US presidents really don't bolster the case. In the 1944-45 period, you can also find numerous quotes from Western leaders, most notably Churchill, forcefully advocating the mass destruction of the German intelligentsia and Junker class, and the reduction of Germany to a level of near-starvation agrarian subsistence. Understandable in context, given two world wars, 4 years of total war and savage bombing, plus growing evidence of the enormity of Nazi crimes.

What really matters is whether these emotional statements were implemented as real policy.

Context matters. Prior to 1783, the Iroquois -- encouraged but not led by the British-- had carried out a number of very violent raids on white settlements deprived of their military age males who were away fighting for the Patriot cause. Whether or not their motive was:

a. rolling back recent white encroachment

b. exacting revenge for past white aggression

c. seeking loot and scalps from weak neighbors (the JasonC theory)

their actions were sufficiently barbaric that barbaric postwar American reprisals can be understood, if not justified either.

But we can argue "who started it" until doomsday. The undeniable fact is that Sonderkommando Sullivan didn't execute Reichsfuhrer Washington's orders very thoroughly. Most Iroquois survived, scraping through 1784-1930+ on the usual meager combination of day labour, barter, subsistence farming, and (later) white charity. Not pleasant, not easy to escape even today, but also NOT genocide.

I'll leave it to someone else better versed in US history to defend the other 3 presidents on Mount Rushmore -- IIRC, all 3 also spoke and legislated in favour of Indians at other times. No, they hardly rolled the clock back to 1491, or even followed up to ensure that Indians got a square deal to match the lofty rhetoric. But neither they nor the US government were the rabid Indian killers you paint them as.

[LongLeftFlank]

I'd point out also that white US social attitudes and policy towards Indians, even at the time, were a lot more conflicted than that shown by Germany toward Jews, or by Hutus towards Tutsi. US opponent Tecumseth became a widely admired folk hero -- the Saladin of his day. The honesty, loyalty and self-reliance of Indians was as celebrated (though just as stereotyped) as their courage and savagery (e.g. James Fenimore Cooper through Frederic Remington). The Wounded Knee slaughter was decried as a scandal and a national shame in its own day, and not just among Boston Brahmin Transcendentalists. Chief Seattle's speech (the original, not the crunchy 1970s fabricated one) survives because it was widely published in white US newspapers.

Again, romantic images of Indians didn't match actual attitudes on the ground: at best condescending (church sponsored Indian schools), at worst lethal (pestilential internment camps).

But hardly the picture of a US Final Solution, or a Manifest Destiny gleefully built on heaps of Indian skulls.

[DavidFields]

How about this:

Most large groups of people are similar. I do not think that "Germans" or "Russians" or "Americans" or "Native Americans" are fundamentally more or less moral than each other.

If you give most boys a hammer, and something to hit, most of them will hit it.

National Socialism, Communism, Manifest Destiny, and Paganism, can all be used as reasons to do terrible things. But it is people who actually do those terrible things, and a percentage of even true believers will refuse to cause harm for moral reasons at critical times. One can argue that some ideologies are "better" at bringing out the worst in people.

At the risk of getting some people very upset, one can even point to positive things that happened with all the above ideologies. I happen to think National Socialism was a "bad branch" to a line of German thought which also had brought us a strong academic system, and strong scientific discoveries.

I have no problem with someone not wanting to play what he/she interprets as pro-Nazi scenarios, it is perhaps the sharp vehemence of the opinion which I would dampen.

"War simulations" like CM teach, I think, the effective use of certain types of force. This can be useful to know, even for "peaceful" people.

I know people who would make the case that I should not be involved with these simulations at all--that they teach violence.

At the extreme, I know people who would ban these games.

And perhaps, some person who has become expert at having prep firing a building, through genades, and then close assault, with the slaughtering of all the enemy "units", may become aggressive in his/her personal life (mostly "his", I would guess most of our arm chair commanders are).

But if you have ever tried to move an initiative, even a liberal one, through a bureaucracy, you might have noticed some similarities with some of the techniques (some...) one needs to be effective.

Most people, I think, are not going to be scarred by the Whitmann scenario. Most people screaming for blood at a soccer or American Football match are not going to be murderers. I hope they also cry at La Traviata. And I hope they are also tender and kind to the young, the elderly, and the infirm--anywhere.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Billy Prior:

This was raised in the 'Wittmann in the East' discussions and, I think, is a wider issue that I'd appreciate people's views on.

I share other correspondents' views that there are scenarios out there that, for want of a better phrase, are neo nazi in sympathy in that they are set up to allow the Axis player to win easily regardless of the Allied player's response. I fully accept that there are historical scenarios where this will occur but the example being discussed (Wittmann in the East) is ahistorical.

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

i can hear you! i myself am most deeply offended by scenarios which depict Soviet attacks against Finnish forces. i can't fanthom what kind of morbid human beings can make such scenarios! why would anyone want to play as a Totalitarian Communist Stalinist who tries to destroy some tiny nation and deport the population to camps in Siberia!??!111 and what's with the undermodelling of Finnish weapons?! i have read that Finns were able to penetrate KV front turret with 37mm AT guns by aiming at the MG port, but my AT guns won't destroy KV platoons even when i give clear target orders!11 why do Finnish tanks suck?! i think Combat Mission is made by Communists! and what about those freaks who like to play as Brits or Americans? aren't they aware that they are fighting to help Stalin kill, burn & rape all the Finns? we must stop these Satanists & Sodomites before all is lost! how can i mod CM so that Soviet side doesn't have that horrible red flag? it makes me cry every time i see it. when people use words like "Comrade" in their AARs i can't take their inhuman totalitarian filth anymore and must shut down my computer immediately! please help!

[DavidFields]

undead reindeer cavalry:

Hilarious. Clearly there is more than one way to make a point.

[Billy Prior]

Having gone away for a few days over Easter it waqs something of a surprise to see this thread continuing.

Perhaps my mistake was not heading it up - unbalanced/ahistorical scenarios to avoid?

I got some good information from Jason C and Andreas about a couple of scenarios, a comment that said, in effect, I should play and learn from a very helpful correspondent, witnessed a very passionate debate about indigenous peoples and was satirised.

Six pages of posts in total.

[Ales Dvorak]

You have to be careful on this forum.....

[ April 20, 2006, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Ales Dvorak ]