Do Scenarios Glorify the Adventurous Aspects of War While Ignoring the Atrocities?

Cybernut

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 19, 2001
Messages
78
Location
London
I was looking through the scenario listings for Civ 2 today, and noticed a lot of WW2 scenarios. It is explicitly obvious that something was tragically missing from all of these "summaries" of the historical context to the war. In fact I would go as far as to say that most ignore the real context for WW2 and Nazism- race.

How can you list the events of WW2 and give no mention to the Holocaust? I understand that it is just a game. BUT, this is not just any event, this is living history. We all live in a world tainted by these happenings.

All of these scenarios go to great length to provide a sense of realism to the gameplay. This in my mind exacerbates the situation. How can you glorify the German position in the "Final Days" of the war? How many millions had been slaughtered by this stage in concentration camps? How many millions of Slavs were slaughtered by the SS in the East? Perhaps you should think about an SS genocide unit?

I have no problem inventing scenarios that take the Nazi position i.e taking the place of Rommel etc. But to glorify the conflict in the process, and to do it in such a false manner. Look at the Eastern conflict from the position of the German foot soldier. They were being wiped out. Because of the atrocities committed by the SS in Russia and the Ukraine (not to mention the holocaust), any German prisoners were executed. On top of that they lived in the most horrendous conditions imaginable - freezing cold, little food, the constant fear of death. German soldiers feared being sent to the Eastern Front ... it was a punishment. It was a case of fight or die ... there's nothing glorifiable about that.

So where is the glory? The tendency seems to be to glorify the "elite" of the Nazi machine (the "fuehrer", the General's, the Field Marshal's). This is reprehensible from any standpoint. The holocaust and the other human atrocities of the war are indebted (in part) to the bureaucratic chain of command that starts with this elite. They bought into the racism of the Nazi movement more than any other, and therefore should be the one's held primarily responsible. They should not be deified as "warriors " or "heroes".

The unethical silence on these matters (holocaust, genocide), while at the same time deifying the role of the perpetrators is reprehensible in my opinion. This is living history and therefore should be treated as such. We're not talking about ancient or medieval times. We're talking about the complete separation of a world were, on the one hand, babies and children were being tossed onto burning pyres alive, and on the other, the "glorious" perpetrators of these atrocities marching victoriously into battle. I'm sorry, these two extremes cannot be conjoined. Auschwitz cannot be ignored and war is not glorious (especially in this "living" Nazi sense) - ask a conscript on the Eastern front.

My question is this: Can we hide behind the declaration that this is just a game? What does that say about "we" who play these scenarios, and more pertinently, (U)those who write them?(/U) Are these scenarios really real, given there complete lack of proper historical context?

Does anyone else think about these matters when they indulge in these ignorant and therefore sick fantasies of others?
 
I would agree with you if this concerned documentaries or a series of books....
B]But, it is just a game[/B]

The scenarios should be approached purely as a recreation of (military) historical events. Civ III was designed to be simulation, not an exact recreation of all events in modern history.
 
But these scenarios are often accompanied with a narrative that often pejoratively affirms the position of the Nazi's. I have no problem playing a simulation of events from a purely military standpoint. But if the narrative is presented in the form of a glorious quest against the "dirty communists" (remember the Russians won the war for the allies ... and sacrificed more than any other nation to do so) then I have problems.

My point is that these scenarios should be presented from a neutral position. Not some glorifying quest to succeed in the name of the Fuehrer.
 
As I wrote some time ago, in my "essay" on "historical realism", I think everybody likes to play out the bad guys. Its fun to play out WWII and play as the germans, because its allowed here. Its an outlet. You don't need to spell it out, necessarily.

I think games are outlets for many things, as well as relaxing, entertaining exercises of mind. I agree with you, I think one could include some of the more gruesome events of world history in this game. But still we're dependant on old christian morality. There are some things people don't like to see their kids identify with. I think they should let them play it out. As long as they play it out, and as long as WE play it out, we learn how to relate to these things. And thats whats important, IMO. But I wouldn't expect too much of this type of consideration from all those playermade scenarios, although some have a very high standard. Most are made purely for fun.
 
Cybernut,

I agree with you to an extent. That's why I tend to make space scenarios and even in my WWII scenario, Hitler dies before the scenario starts. I also try to make sure that research is an important aspect of my scenarios.

HOWEVER, You are also missing the true essence of the Civ II engine. Its primary theme IS the glorification of conquest and expansion and because it is impossible to put the space race into most scenarios, that makes it even more crucial to kill and subjugate your opponents.

A second thing I would like to point out is that humans are innately 'evil' and 'greedy'. That's why we enjoy games and even cartoons with lots of violence. That's why we are at the top of the evolutionary chain. That's why communism failed.
 
Have I succeded in creating the first controversial scenario? Cool! :goodjob:

Cybernut, its called role playing and I wanted to make things more interesting with the dialogues. You are a general who receives military orders and you must obtain your objectives. Although I'd like to take credit for being innovative, I am not the first person to do this for a ww2 scenario.

"The tendency seems to be to glorify the "elite" of the Nazi machine (the "fuehrer", the General's, the Field Marshal's)."
Well... yeah. This is civ2, not a half life mod. Scenarios are built where the human player takes the role of some king, emperor, dictator or general. Mine is no different.

"My point is that these scenarios should be presented from a neutral position. Not some glorifying quest to succeed in the name of the Fuehrer."
Well, your PC attitude would effectively eliminate role playing for any historical scenario. What if I made a scenario on Rome with role playing texts? Romans exterminated cultures and fed religious dissidents to their lions. Or what if I made a role playing scenario on American colonization? I couldn't do that either because they annihilated the native cultures of america. You see these tragedies happen in history. Let history be history, I'm not going to censor a game because someone might get offended. I'd rather bring history back alive realistically... at least to some extent. I'm not a professional historian but I may try.

In any case, it's your opinion, if you find it offensive or whatever, that's fine. You have a right to your own opinion and you don't have to play the scenario. I enjoyed making it, playing it, and I know there are a few people out there who enjoy playing it as well.

However, you did make comments that I do have problems with.
"German soldiers feared being sent to the Eastern Front ... it was a punishment. It was a case of fight or die ... there's nothing glorifiable about that."
Duh! That's exactly why they deserve respect. It was a very hard thing for them to do but they did it anyway. No different from lower class americans being drafted and sent off to die in Vietnam, who didn't get respect in their times either. Risking one's life one's country is a brave thing, and because with everyone's obsession with condeming Hitler it is assumed that the average German soldier was a satanic demon hell bent on destroying the world. I don't buy it, I feel sorry for what they went through, and the reputation they got stuck with, so that's why I dedicated the scenario to them.

But if the narrative is presented in the form of a glorious quest against the "dirty communists" (remember the Russians won the war for the allies ... and sacrificed more than any other nation to do so) then I have problems.
Ethnically, I am a Hungarian and I have family that have lived under Soviet occupation. The numbers of those who have died at Stalin's hand greatly exceed those of Hitlers. Now, I don't hold anything against the average Soviet soldier, but I do have a great contempt for Communism, much as you have for Nazism, and so I have no problem in making a scenario where they are the antagonists.
 
I am jewish, and I lost a lot of family in the Holocaust, but I have no feelings about world war two scenarios, I love playing them, I love playing as Hitler, I love killing Hitler, the thing is, its just a game.

I think we ALL realize that war is a terrible, horrible, awful thing, and that what the Nazi's did is absolutly wrong to the highest degree, BUT the Germans had some BRILLIANT generals and military moves, I hate the Nazis, but I have a great deal of respect for their military might and stratigy.

If the scenario was, "See how many jews you can kill"

I would be offened

but we NEED To learn to seperate WWII, and the holocaust because they are not one in the same.
 
;)

I haven't got a problem about simulation, or computer game violence. But I've researched the holocaust for a while now, and when you've read enough details about the happenings (and Schidler's List is a tame glorification of the redemptive qualities of the human condition amidst chaos ... not the "evil" reality that is made manifest by these things), it's hard to play as Hitler's right hand man and forget where that also puts you.

I don't know how many times I've reversed the result of Stalingrad in different games. But official releases tend not to be so uninformed about historical facts. They do not glorify the shoes into which you step.

But I guess we all do these things. I don't know how many times I wiped out the local Indian populations in Colonization ... "Indian Unrest ... I'll show ya!"

...its called role playing and I wanted to make things more interesting with the dialogues.

That was sort of the point I was trying to raise. If someone wrote an Osama Bin Laden scenario on say 12th September, and the aim was to wipe out innocent civilians by raising American cities ... I think there would be a bit of an outcry! What's the difference? In fact this pales in comparison to the Holocaust and Rwanda.

Ethnically, I am a Hungarian and I have family that have lived under Soviet occupation. The numbers of those who have died at Stalin's hand greatly exceed those of Hitlers. Now, I don't hold anything against the average Soviet soldier, but I do have a great contempt for Communism, much as you have for Nazism, and so I have no problem in making a scenario where they are the antagonists.

I have no sympathy for Communism (not that the alternative is any picnic) ... but I'd be careful about entering into a numbers game. Although I accept that this is not your intention, "he killed more than him" is hardly a good reason to justify a position. Stalin was a butcher of equally vicious proportions, but don't you think that the racial ideology of Nazism sets it apart? ... and that after all is the reason for the whole military conflict ... to wipe out the inferior races and create a living space in the East for the indo-european Aryan peoples. As such, it becomes dangerous to take a pejorative position with regards the Eastern conflict especially.

Hey ... I'm not saying people shouldn't play this scenario. If I still played Civ 2, I'd certainly give it a bash ... you put a lot of work in and that's usually reflected positively in the gameplay. But I'd certainly be questioning myself in the process. I'd rather take the German position from a purely neutral perspective. We've all indulged in the cartoon violence of computer gaming. But it is a little less cartoony when placed in an exact historical context.

But maybe I'm just a cry-ba. I used to feel guilty about destroying indian tribes in Colonization ... and now in Civ 3 I get to raise whole cities, while in the process massacring half of the population ... go figure :)

P.S.

...but we NEED To learn to seperate WWII, and the holocaust because they are not one in the same.

Sorry I can't agree with that. War facilitated the real Nazi goal ... the race element. They are one in the same. To forget that war is a cover for attrocities is to forget Rwanda (as I think most already have ... 1997 anyone ... 1 Million massacred in 3 weeks ... we watched it on TV ... can we seapate this event from the Rwandan civil war?). History is supposed to teach us lessons. It seems that history just repeats itself, and is facilitated by historically inaccurate comments such as these. Sorry to get preachy.

IT'S NICE TO RAISE A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE ONCE IN WHILE. IT BEATS THE CONSTANT PANDERING ABOUT THE NEW PATCH!
 
Originally posted by Cybernut
Stalin was a butcher of equally vicious proportions, but don't you think that the racial ideology of Nazism sets it apart? ... and that after all is the reason for the whole military conflict ... to wipe out the inferior races and create a living space in the East for the indo-european Aryan peoples. As such, it becomes dangerous to take a pejorative position with regards the Eastern conflict especially.
Agree completely. The eastern war ideologically paved the way for the holocaust. It was a downward spiral of human mentality, driven by very complex mechanisms. Hunger, cold, miserable living conditions combined with an authoritarian bureaucracy and an ideology of racial superiority. All combined to make the eastern war tremendously barbaric, shaped by each and every soldier. It was common germans and family-fathers who killed and massacred people on this account, made into butcherers by their circumstances. There's no justifying that. We can only attempt to understand these circumstances, which historians have only started to in recent years.
But I'd certainly be questioning myself in the process. I'd rather take the German position from a purely neutral perspective. We've all indulged in the cartoon violence of computer gaming. But it is a little less cartoony when placed in an exact historical context.
Why? I would think that it is this cartoony and "illustrated" nature that detaches you from reality? I'd prefer anyday a game that has this "questioning myself" or reflective character, than a game that blindly subscribes to the cartoony stuff. Which tends to be of the same biased and heroic-style nature that you started to critizise...
History is supposed to teach us lessons.
says who?
It seems that history just repeats itself, and is facilitated by historically inaccurate comments such as these. Sorry to get preachy.
But history is many things. And we need to understand events in many different ways. There is no "fixed" explanation. Its a process. Games are part of that process of understanding, just as great art, academic research, books and films and are.

IT'S NICE TO RAISE A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE ONCE IN WHILE. IT BEATS THE CONSTANT PANDERING ABOUT THE NEW PATCH!
Agreed. :lol:
 
My dear CyberNut, you're taking this far too seriously.

"I used to feel guilty about destroying indian tribes in Colonization ... and now in Civ 3 I get to raise whole cities, while in the process massacring half of the population"

I agree that we should perhaps focus more on the "human" aspects, but after all, Civ2 is merely a war simulation game. Despite what people say, it's not realistic.

In my Reich scenario I didn't mention Holocaust or Nazi ideology once, and maybe I should have. But my games focuses only on the military spectre.

Let's face it: Civ is supposed to be fun, war is bad, and if you had to think about the consequences all the time, you wouldn't enjoy it.

It's like telling children, playing with a kitchen set: "Hey don't play that, you'll have to do the dishes afterwards!"

That would ruin the fun.

I am not comparing washing dishes with Holocaust, but you get the idea...
 
"Civ is supposed to be fun"
"Only a war simulation game, it's not realistic"

I agree with you. :)
Civ's primary goal is to entertain people. But like all games, books, films etc it can also be a teaching instrument. I think that dimension shouldn't be forgotten.

"how can you list WW2 events and give no mention to the Holocaust?" wrote Cybernut

IMHO a good historical scenario recreates the atmosphere of the epoch it portrays. That includes not only military aspects but also a "human" dimension. That's why I think a few remarks in the scenario itself (I'm not asking for a whole essay about the genocide!) about this aspect would be good and make the recreation more comprehensive.
 
Uhhmmmm I agree with pretty much all of you guys :-D

And, for the record, Hitler killed more the Stalin, however, Stalin killed more in cold blood.
 
No, Stalin really did kill more, but not always first hand. Many people died as a result of his actions, rather than simply being killed by soviets
 
If any of you are seriously in moral quandry about the activities in a GAME, you have many more problems than this particular "moral dilemma".

CivIII is hardly intended to be a textbook for historical events or concepts of morality. Its purpose is to simply entertain. Trying to look further into it and derive some sort of life lesson from it is pure idiocy.

Quite frankly, worry more about what's actually going on in the world.
 
I love WW2 scenarios and WW1 scenarios. Mostly WW2 though. I play them for fun and to see if i can change history :)
Can i invade britain and succeed from Norway?
Can the Afrika Korps succeed?
What if the allies landed near Hamburg? ;)
those sorta things.
 
"Quite frankly, worry more about what's actually going on in the world."

Are you denying the importance of history, Sgt. Zimm?

If you are, then let me tell you, that we have to worry about events of the past almost as much as those of the present. The events of history, took us to the present, and to truly understand the world, you must understand the history.
We must know history to learn from it and, in the case of the 20th century, prevent it from repeating itself.

The best tool to understanding the present or the history is not, however, Civilization, due to the fact that it is a GAME and it's made to ENTERTAIN.
 
Originally posted by insurgent
"Quite frankly, worry more about what's actually going on in the world."

Are you denying the importance of history, Sgt. Zimm?

If you are, then let me tell you, that we have to worry about events of the past almost as much as those of the present. The events of history, took us to the present, and to truly understand the world, you must understand the history.
We must know history to learn from it and, in the case of the 20th century, prevent it from repeating itself.

The best tool to understanding the present or the history is not, however, Civilization, due to the fact that it is a GAME and it's made to ENTERTAIN.

Denying the importance of history? not at all friend, but this topic was about the the scenarios portrayed in Civ and whether they glorify the more violent actions. Some who posted here seemed to worry about the overall trivial nature of this game, and it is just a GAME. Perhaps I should have written "Quite frankly, worry about things that actually matter, like what's going on in the world" considering the focus of the reading seems to be on only this sentence (not to mention also taken out of context.)

While historical events have certainly inspired Civ, don't look to it as some sort of "history of the world", to that demeans the entire practice of history.

Try reading the entire post this time and not just the closing sentence.
 
"Perhaps I should have written "Quite frankly, worry about things that actually matter, like what's going on in the world" considering the focus of the reading seems to be on only this sentence (not to mention also taken out of context.)"
- Sorry

I agree, Civilization is not realistic.

"Try reading the entire post this time and not just the closing sentence."
- I did read the post. No need to get mean, is there?
 
Originally posted by Sgt Zimm
"Quite frankly, worry about things that actually matter, like what's going on in the world" considering the focus of the reading seems to be on only this sentence (not to mention also taken out of context.)

Past is a thing that actually matter like insurgent said, it isn't only the present, because to understand the present you must give attention to the past (again like insurgent said).

b03
 
Back
Top Bottom