Burning Baltics...

[ComradeP]

I'm often surprised at how Nazi troops are looked at favourably in wargames, in historical research or with re-enactment groups. Simulated war and real war are two different things, but there are a considerable number of "help the Nazi's win the war" games.

The generals writing their memoirs in the 1960's have succeeded beyond expectation in blaming the majority of the atrocities on Hitler and a limited number of SS personnel, resulting in a traditional representation of competent leadership, quality troops and good equipment in almost every wargame covering the German armed forces.

There's certainly some ambiguity between presenting people with a shady to downright criminal (post-)war record as examples, a fine line between glamourization and presenting those people as experts in their field.

[Gusington]

Great thread. It parallels the ongoing historical debate since the war on keeping the Wehrmacht's reputation 'Nazi-free,' as in 'all the real war criminals were in the SS - the Wehrmacht was just following orders' or that the Wehrmacht was as much victims as the peoples in the countries that were invaded. The nuanced argument that Wehrmacht soldiers were fighting for 'Germany and not the Nazi Party' always sounds a little forced and contrived to me. I understand that there could have been millions of German soldiers who were not Nazis or who were not all, but me personally...it doesn't matter much. If I were in the boots of my grandfathers, my uncles, my cousins who fought over there, or, God forbid, in the shoes of the less fortunate members of my family killed in the Holocaust...political affiliation of the German trooper on the other end would not matter to me. Probably the same way that German troops didn't care if my Gramps voted for Roosevelt or not. Just that he was an American, or a Jewish American, or a Polish or Russian Jew...and that he had to die.

Ugliness and horror all around, and it should never be forgotten. And definitely not glamorized. 75 years on and it amazes me how much is already forgotten. As gamers and historians we owe it to ourselves and those who came before to carry the torch.

[Father Ted]

Great thread

Yes -  kudos JH for bringing this up.  I've bumped into people who would set themselves up as SS units, or have SS "tags" in WW2 shooter games and it always made me uneasy.  When questioned about their motives, these guys would usually come back with something about "just wanting to represent an elite combat unit."  Now to my mind there are plenty of WW2 elite combat units which weren't the military arm of the Nazi party, but heigh ho.

To get back on topic:  there are some scenarios in the Bulge module CO2 where can you command task-force Peiper - and those are a no-no for me

[Ubercat]

How about on a larger scale, like Bulge at the battalion level or higher? SS formations are included but not the whole of your force.

[Father Ted]

How about on a larger scale, like Bulge at the battalion level or higher? SS formations are included but not the whole of your force.

I'm just uncomfortable "commanding" such units.  When I wargame my team are the good guys and there's no way I can feel that about the SS.

[Jarhead0331]

Yeah, I've already said it, but I'll say it again because it's an important point.  I'm not against organizational units at any level being represented in the field in a wargame. I'm not even against choosing them when I game. They have their place, it is usually an important one, and they belong in the OOB. I just find it questionable and unnecessary to represent specific individuals whose conduct by any objective measure was deplorable in any light that can be construed as noteworthy or favorable. Including these individuals as "ace" units is to distinguish them as having specific value beyond generic units. It just feels wrong and ill advised to me.

[al_infierno]

I'm often surprised at how Nazi troops are looked at favourably in wargames, in historical research or with re-enactment groups. Simulated war and real war are two different things, but there are a considerable number of "help the Nazi's win the war" games.

The generals writing their memoirs in the 1960's have succeeded beyond expectation in blaming the majority of the atrocities on Hitler and a limited number of SS personnel, resulting in a traditional representation of competent leadership, quality troops and good equipment in almost every wargame covering the German armed forces.

There's certainly some ambiguity between presenting people with a shady to downright criminal (post-)war record as examples, a fine line between glamourization and presenting those people as experts in their field.

Yeah, it's really interesting to read modern analyses of the eastern front after the opening of the Soviet archive.  It seems like the consensus among serious historians has pretty much made a total 180 since the 1980s.  Back then, the Wehrmacht was seen as a hyper competent war machine that ingeniously outmaneuvered and out-tactics'd (I'm pretty sure that's the technical term) all their enemies until Hitler's blunders brought them to a screeching halt in the East.  Now, the agreement seems to be that the Wehrmacht's success depended primarily on their enemies being grossly unprepared for modern warfare and the required defensive tactics (France & Belgium), or taken by surprise altogether with little chance of organizing a real defense before their armies were surrounded (Poland & USSR).  Once they faced an actual competent army in the reformed 1943 Red Army, they were sent reeling back to Berlin with little in the way of meaningful victories.  And while a lot of that can be attributed to losses, attrition, morale, etc. - modern historians like Glantz and Fritz seem to agree that the Wehrmacht had no chance of actually achieving their objectives even if they knew it would be a multi-year campaign and had winter preparations, etc.

Of course, mainstay wargames that were developed in the 1980s like ASL have these assumptions baked into their core.

Back on topic, I tend to agree that this whitewashed treatment of war criminals is highly distasteful.  When Hitler or Stalin is included in a video game, they're not generally presented as a "cool" or "desirable" character to play as, but a bad guy to defeat or a necessary evil to placate (in the case of Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, where Hitler is your overbearing boss and playing as Stalin includes a host of paranoia mechanics etc).  The description they released definitely crosses the line into whitewashing, and the tonedeaf name "Burning Baltics" does not exactly help their case.

[Destraex]

I must admit I really would not be bothered at all if all of the "aces" were not even in steel division 2 at all. They do not offer any statistical value and are only their for flavour.
I think the aces being added was an attempt by Eugen to give people a memory point to differentiate the divisions. Because most divisions are just repetition of the same equipment in slightly different numbers. I don't think Eugen are making the aces heros or they would have better stats, they are telling their "combat" history however, the same as they have the division commanders history. They as they should are staying away from the political side of things on purpose.

This is how they describe one of the most infamous german divisions depicted in SD2. I could find no descriptions for the aces in the actual game. This means that the Udel description you read on the preview will probably only reach very few, not only that, but the few who actually are intelligent enough to "read" things as a matter of habit. Most will never see it if that is any comfort.


One of the newest divisions. An Allied one for comparison

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

My take on it is that you can't change the past and these are just games.  Playing them isn't going to change anything and I don't see games as being gateways into radicalizing people.  Yes, I've seen the occasional idiot at wargaming cons wearing his Afrika Korps field cap or Che T-shirt.  I suspect these people were idiots who idolize dangerous ideologies long before they discovered wargames.  I've also met gamers who didn't want to play a particular game because they found the subject matter disturbing or distasteful and that's perfectly fine with me.  We can always find something else to play.  (Only happened 4 times that I can recall.  One guy of Pakistani descent didn't want to play Labyrinth: The War on Terror.  A German physicist didn't want to play anything WWII related.  A woman I know doesn't like to play Puerto Rico because she thinks the brown "worker" markers are racist.  A Euro-mutt Canuck won't play any of my games about Bomber Command because he finds the subject of firebombing German population centres distasteful.)   Nobody was hostile or aggressive about it.  They just stated why they didn't want to play and we picked something else.

I guess I'm just insensitive but, as I said, to be they're just games.  I can distance myself from the history of the subject matter as all I'm really doing is staring at pixels or moving bits of cardboard around a board.  I'll play a game about pretty much any subject as long as the gameplay is decent and the game isn't going out of its way to be purposely obscene for shock or titillation value.  If it's a good game, Ill play it and have fun while making some off-colour jokes while playing it.  I won't go out of my way to buy them, but if someone plops one down at gaming night, I'll give it a whirl.  (Having said that, I much prefer fighting the dirty Nazis or Commies than playing as them.  Eastern Front games present a conundrum.  No issues playing as Japan though.  Not sure why.  I did once refuse to play some Japanese anime-themed card game at a store.  The pedo vibes were just a little too strong for me to be playing in a store with families walking by.)

[AndyBrown]

Yeah, I've already said it, but I'll say it again because it's an important point.  I'm not against organizational units at any level being represented in the field in a wargame. I'm not even against choosing them when I game. They have their place, it is usually an important one, and they belong in the OOB. I just find it questionable and unnecessary to represent specific individuals whose conduct by any objective measure was deplorable in any light that can be construed as noteworthy or favorable. Including these individuals as "ace" units is to distinguish them as having specific value beyond generic units. It just feels wrong and ill advised to me.

Can't help feeling you're a little inconsistent here JH because a wargame unit does represent specific historical individuals, even if the game designer hasn't chosen to name them all.

From a historical and game design pov, the issue here is that there were individuals whose attitudes and skills set them far above their fellow combatants.  Rudel, whatever his politics, was such a person and, as his kill numbers indicate, his value to the Nazi war effort was probably equivalent to several dozen less capable pilots.  I'd argue it's perfectly OK for game designers to explore the impact of these extraordinary individuals in their game designs.

It may be more appropriate to simple label the counter or icon something generic like "Ace Pilot" instead of linking it with a particular historical individual but that's just a matter of taste.

[Destraex]

My take on it is that you can't change the past and these are just games.  Playing them isn't going to change anything and I don't see games as being gateways into radicalizing people.  Yes, I've seen the occasional idiot at wargaming cons wearing his Afrika Korps field cap or Che T-shirt.  I suspect these people were idiots who idolize dangerous ideologies long before they discovered wargames.  I've also met gamers who didn't want to play a particular game because they found the subject matter disturbing or distasteful and that's perfectly fine with me.  We can always find something else to play.  (Only happened 4 times that I can recall.  One guy of Pakistani descent didn't want to play Labyrinth: The War on Terror.  A German physicist didn't want to play anything WWII related.  A woman I know doesn't like to play Puerto Rico because she thinks the brown "worker" markers are racist.  A Euro-mutt Canuck won't play any of my games about Bomber Command because he finds the subject of firebombing German population centres distasteful.)   Nobody was hostile or aggressive about it.  They just stated why they didn't want to play and we picked something else.

I guess I'm just insensitive but, as I said, to be they're just games.  I can distance myself from the history of the subject matter as all I'm really doing is staring at pixels or moving bits of cardboard around a board.  I'll play a game about pretty much any subject as long as the gameplay is decent and the game isn't going out of its way to be purposely obscene for shock or titillation value.  If it's a good game, Ill play it and have fun while making some off-colour jokes while playing it.  I won't go out of my way to buy them, but if someone plops one down at gaming night, I'll give it a whirl.  (Having said that, I much prefer fighting the dirty Nazis or Commies than playing as them.  Eastern Front games present a conundrum.  No issues playing as Japan though.  Not sure why.  I did once refuse to play some Japanese anime-themed card game at a store.  The pedo vibes were just a little too strong for me to be playing in a store with families walking by.)

That firebombing situation would be an interesting comparative analogy t unpack if we had a game like Memphis Bell based on the Dresden bombings which depicted "ace" bomber crews. I guess we may get one with the mighty Eighth.

[Phantom]

I can play a game without really giving much thought to the underlying characters, if they're real characters then by definition they took part so you have to accommodate them in a (realistic) game. I'm playing a game/simulation, not condoning their actions or beliefs.
There's very few good points about war & an almost infinite amount of bad points, so if I was sensitive about the issue I wouldn't play wargames at all.
The other thing that irks me about these debates is that somehow "evil" is time constrained. People often express distaste at playing Hitler or Stalin, yet happily fire up Rome Total War etc. & glory in Caesars machinations & conquests. Genocidal megalomaniacs - Acceptable characters after 25, 50, 100 or 500 years? - discuss  :)

[Gusington]

^Good post and good points, especially 'there's very few good points about war.'

[al_infierno]

I can play a game without really giving much thought to the underlying characters, if they're real characters then by definition they took part so you have to accommodate them in a (realistic) game. I'm playing a game/simulation, not condoning their actions or beliefs.
There's very few good points about war & an almost infinite amount of bad points, so if I was sensitive about the issue I wouldn't play wargames at all.
The other thing that irks me about these debates is that somehow "evil" is time constrained. People often express distaste at playing Hitler or Stalin, yet happily fire up Rome Total War etc. & glory in Caesars machinations & conquests. Genocidal megalomaniacs - Acceptable characters after 25, 50, 100 or 500 years? - discuss  :)

Actually, on a similar note, I think there's something to be said for the argument that wargames set in conflicts that still have living veterans are inherently distasteful.  For example, by playing a scenario set in the battle of Fallujah, you are effectively playing in the graveyard of real living people's friends and family members. 

Personally, I don't think this argument carries so much weight that said games shouldn't be made or enjoyed (this would effectively rule out all WWII games), but it's an interesting perspective that I've heard from non-gaming folks.

[Tripoli]

I can play a game without really giving much thought to the underlying characters, if they're real characters then by definition they took part so you have to accommodate them in a (realistic) game. I'm playing a game/simulation, not condoning their actions or beliefs.
There's very few good points about war & an almost infinite amount of bad points, so if I was sensitive about the issue I wouldn't play wargames at all.
The other thing that irks me about these debates is that somehow "evil" is time constrained. People often express distaste at playing Hitler or Stalin, yet happily fire up Rome Total War etc. & glory in Caesars machinations & conquests. Genocidal megalomaniacs - Acceptable characters after 25, 50, 100 or 500 years? - discuss  :)

Actually, on a similar note, I think there's something to be said for the argument that wargames set in conflicts that still have living veterans are inherently distasteful.  For example, by playing a scenario set in the battle of Fallujah, you are effectively playing in the graveyard of real living people's friends and family members. 

Personally, I don't think this argument carries so much weight that said games shouldn't be made or enjoyed (this would effectively rule out all WWII games), but it's an interesting perspective that I've heard from non-gaming folks.

I think it depends.  I use wargames partially because of professional interest.  In such cases, I would disagree that my playing a professional-level modern wargame is disrespectful.  Now, if hypothetically, I were to play something like Wolfenstein: Fallujah, then there might be more of a point to the claim it was disrespectful.