War Crimes in Video Games

[Dolan50]

I thought the issue was whether or not the Free French were to be
considered regular or irregular soldiers,since France had surrendered to
Germany before the battle of Bir Hachiem.

The British told the Germans that if Germany executed the free French
soldiers then they sadly in return would execute German soldiers as
well.So the Germans rescinded the order.

The Germans didn't seperate Jews from regular prisoners taken from Western
armies,but in Russia they would seperate the Jews from the regular
prisoners because they felt the Jewish soldiers were most likely to be
soldiers of higher rank and/or communist political officers(Commissars) in
the Russian army.

The Russian army would seperate the SS from regular German prisoners for almost the same reason.

[DicedT]

That's not correct. Jewish-Americans soldiers were separated from other GIs and sent to special work camps. Many of them died. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4672288

Michael

[MengJiao]

I thought the issue was whether or not the Free French were to be
considered regular or irregular soldiers,since France had surrendered to
Germany before the battle of Bir Hachiem.

The British told the Germans that if Germany executed the free French
soldiers then they sadly in return would execute German soldiers as
well.So the Germans rescinded the order.

The Germans didn't seperate Jews from regular prisoners taken from Western
armies,but in Russia they would seperate the Jews from the regular
prisoners because they felt the Jewish soldiers were most likely to be
soldiers of higher rank and/or communist political officers(Commissars) in
the Russian army.

The Russian army would seperate the SS from regular German prisoners for almost the same reason.

   About Bir Hakiem and a nearby smaller mined box battle, there seem to be plenty of different stories.  In any case, apparently Hitler wanted some of the prisoners shot, but Rommel didn't follow the order and of course it probably never occured to the victorious Axis troops to shoot any prisoners even if technically maybe the GC didn't protect partisans at the time.

   So in game terms, shooting prisoners was only ordered at the highest command levels and not carried out either by the troops involved (since they knew how to take prisoners) or any lower levels of command (since there are long-standing rules about offering terms and so on).

   So in game terms, for a regional or front commander like Rommel, there could be some gaming of the problem of direct orders from higher up to shoot prisoners, and the fact that under many circumstances other rules (as understood by soldiers and lower commanders) would be applied.  BUT, I think the role of the player in the game would need to be clarified in terms of rewards and punishments.  So, in Rommel's case, he might have lost some credibility in the inner circles of German power and he might have gained some in Italian eyes and even added to the sense his enemies might have of his mental integrity perhaps leading them to overestimate his forces or something.

[MengJiao]

That's not correct. Jewish-Americans soldiers were separated from other GIs and sent to special work camps. Many of them died. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4672288

Michael

  And...for that matter, there was the British army paratrooper captured at Arnheim who was sent to Aschwitz because he had a letter from
Hiafa in his pocket.  Which seems a bit harsh.

[BanzaiCat]

So...okay, there's a difference between killing civvies in a game (say, CoD MW 2) in person and mass murdering/cleansing millions in a 4x space game (as was mentioned earlier)?

First, I guess I'm wired wrong, because I don't see the difference. Sure, if I'm walking through that airport in CoD MW 2 and 'AK'ing' "people" into heaps, that's up close and personal. Dropping a nova bomb on a planet and cracking it in half, thereby 'killing' billions of "beings" is the same thing, even if they're not there to see. All in all, it's all electronically-generated pixels and none of it is real. That's the bottom line.

2, how people can get themselves worked up into a righteous indignation over video games, I can understand. Of course, that airport scene is rather horrific. But I played through it, just so I could say I did. (Note: I never said I did, until now anyway.) But again, it's a game; it's not real, it's not a training simulator for wannabe terrorists. Of course there's going to be people with hidden sadomasochistic natures that suddenly get sticky in the pants when they start mowing down unarmed civvies with automatic weapons. Regardless of whether you're moving a yellow circle eating pills and chomping ghosts, or planting zombie-eating flowers, or going through Russian airports and shooting civvies, or jacking cars left and right...it's all a game. It's not a real massacre. It's not real flowers. It's not real civvies.

Third, does the Red Cross not have enough to do with real-world events and tragedies without spending valuable resources looking at something as silly as that? The Red Cross is something of a national joke among blood centers for constantly screwing up blood draws, having unsafe working conditions, and being fined millions by the federal government for being so bad at their jobs. Why they would feel the urge to do this is laughable.

So, if we're going to police video games and start applying Geneva Convention rules to them, might as well start applying other real-world laws. Which will turn every video game ever into Pong, and we're back to square 1.

Sorry, rant over. I'm tired and cold right now and should be working instead of reading this board (oops, I might get fired from my SimJob now).

[Dolan50]

There's lots of money in the gaming industry and it seems the Red Cross is
looking for an angle/way to cut themselves in on the profit and popularity
of these games.

Wonder how fair and balanced they would be in exerting their influence
once they started getting paid off to turn a blind eye away from games
with a huge profit margin that don't adhere to these rules.

It just looks like a blackmail and hush money scheme to me.They just want you to believe this shit is real with real world consequences so as to get real money from you.

How many people actually buy these games for the sole enjoyment of commiting war crimes.
I look for balance in a wargame so I can play either side for a challenge.

Most of the wargames I play don't even involve civilians and the prisoners
can't be targeted after they surrender anyways.

Regardless,if I own a game I should be able to commit war crimes if I
feel like it.I don't need the Red Cross telling me what is right or wrong
in a virtual world.

If the Red Cross thinks that the modern rules of warfare would make a game more interesting and exciting to play then maybe they should try their hand at creating one and see how much profit they generate for themselves,instead of gambling with other peoples money and profit margins.

[BanzaiCat]

There's lots of money in the gaming industry and it seems the Red Cross is
looking for an angle/way to cut themselves in on the profit and popularity
of these games.

I suppose so. Considering how many millions the FDA fines the American Red Cross, I wouldn't doubt they're looking for a new revenue stream to make up the difference.