"Wargaming and the Swastika? " Topic

Would we be any better than they are?

No, we wouldn't be better. We'd be just like them. Killing civilians for their beliefs is what the bad guys do. Doesn't mean that I like having to let those poisonous snakes live, but I am unwilling to sink to their level. Articles of the Code of Conduct, Article I: "I am an American, fighting in the forces which defend my country and protect our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense."

Meeting violence with greater violence however… Well, we'd just need them to make a first strike to give us an excuse, no?

The first reason for the use of deadly force is 'self defense and the defense of others'. The fourth (iirc) reason for the use of deadly force is 'prevention of a serious offense'. No excuse involved, and technically, neither is a first strike. Conspiracy to commit would cover government intervention, although I think the Patriot Act's definitions of 'terrorist organization' are still in law and neatly cover those idiot's beliefs. Let's see how well they recruit when their organization is legally defined as terrorists… Unfortunately, civilians have a tighter standard of behavior.

It is truely scary where this is all going…
Sorry to hijack for a moment….
I understand the sensitivity, at 41 I don't know the real horror that symbol brought… but banning it?

Just the other day at work, (we have flatscreen monitors that cycle through shop events, profits, company functions, new hires, etc…) It also is used for other things, like showing a picture of the guy who won the company archery pool… well, we had a guy complain that it was offensive, so it had to come down….

Do I even need ot mention those that caused our Christmas shop party to now be called the "Holiday Party"… I so cannot wait until someday, I can legally use this against the oppressors who are trying so hard to make everything so nondenomination, so user safe for everyoen that they are actually infringing on my rights or freedoms.

I understand it is still used to represent soem bad things, but there is a HIGE difference between context and intent…

In wargaming… let it be as it should… do not forget history.

Display of nazi symbols are forbidden under French law (actually the law does not say "nazi symbols" it says "symbols of organizations that have been banned as war criminal") but this does not apply to historical displays etc and I don't think this law has ever been used against wargames. Some wargames sold in France display swastikas.

Personnaly I have no objection to such symbols on a wargame table if there is a reason for it. But do we actually need it? I would not accept a player who would display too many of them without real reason or if I suspect he likes it. And I can accept some SS troops in a battle but I would not play with people very happy to play SS.

"Kaoschallenged" your picture of a swastika half-hidden under some cloth on a tank is inspiring! Could be an useful idea to give a hint of the damn thing on a 28mm model tank without actually showing it.

Well said Patrice, perhaps our concern should be more focussed on those gamers who get a little too enthusiastic about the SS army they are fielding. And yes, some really do get carried away.

I have seen a German wargamer capture some pieces from his opponents (fantasy) army and immediately 'machine gun' them to death in his base camp area. I think it was a joke, with that well known German sense of humour coming to the fore once again!

It's always sensible to consider the culture of the nation concerned when discussing their response to various social phenomena. It would be very very wrong to impose western liberal values learned from our own cultural experiences on nations with dissimilar experiences and, consequently different values. In Germany I would say order, clarity and the greater social good are far more important than quasi liberal expostulations available to the many but with national perks for just the few. No doubt about it, if I was to grow old, get sick, need an education or be unfortunate enough to lose my job I'd much rather be in Germany than in most of the countries of the WW2 victors. (Good beer too!)

Just my 2p in what must surely be the weirdest discussion topic in a hobby discussion board where grown men play with toy soldiers and model tanks…….

Looking at most of the consentious, most of us recognize that omission would be denying our units a more realistic feel to the whole simulation that is spread out on our table of conflict enjoyed by friends. I think the bottom line is that you should know your audience. I don't agree with omitting historical fact because it may not be PC. History is not always pretty and we all lose the lesson if we try to rewrite it to make it play nicer. It happened, get over it and learn from it and don't repeat it. I wouldn't necessarily go against local laws, but living on the far side of a continent on the other side of a vast ocean from the origin of this whole discussion, I can tell most to "go suck it" and still sleep well at night…

Does Swastika bite?

Certain European countries ban the swastika, so stick to the cross symbols.

Pandering to European country's guiult ridden airbrush paranoia can only be justified on the economic grounds that you see a potential for comercial loss if you do not. If that is your conclusion, then it would be as prudent as avoiding cartoons of pigs playing wargames in a book which might appeal to a middle eastern market.

However, I find it significant that there is an almost perfect linear relationship between a society's accomodation with the Nazis at the time and the prohibition of thier symbols.

Those countries which actually fought and bled may disapprove of swastikas, and Nazis, but they do not ban them. Those who collaborated restrict their display and thos who propagated ban them completely. A case, I think of the child being the father of the man.

I agree that wargaming against SS fanbois is tedious, unpleasant, and more than a little creepy. However, if you want to do the Brits in Normandy, restricting yourself to Heer units rather reduces the stature of the opposition. Like it or not, however ideologically unsound, SS runes on the opposition were a fair indication that you were in for a serious fight.

How far will you take this desire to sanitise your games? Shall we see the Taliban rendered without their beards because we don't want to upset bearded muslims, the Ansar without their Koranic verses on their standards? Should our Italians be represented by the tricolour because the fasces are too hideous, our Josef Stalin tanks called KV122s so as not to perpetuate the name of the most prolific mass murderer in history?

Let us respect the law in Germany was once a justification for turning a blind eye to the mild authoritarian supression of individual rights, keep it up and one day the future may look like the past.

Rather late to this, and Grizzly has pretty much expressed what I was thinking as I read though the posts. Particularly the fact that the current German ban has echoes of the behavior of those the symbol represents.

A couple of additional thoughts though.

Another organization that changed their badge/symbol due to the Nazi use of the swastika was the US 4th Infantry Division. They had been based in the southwest and adopted the Navajo symbol.

PC is more prevalent in the US than some of the posters believe. A candidate for office in the 2010 elections took a major hit and spent a lot of time in damage control when pictures of him participating in a WWII reenactment showed up – he was wearing a SS trooper's battledress that the fellow who had invited him had provided. And in Britain of course there was the flap over a certain royals choice of costume for a costume party.

And finally, the excessive focus on the Nazi atrocities in WWII, as I see it, shifts attention from those committed by the Soviets in Eastern Europe, Italians in the Balkans, Japanese (on sheer numbers, I think they 'win'), and Chicoms and Nationalists (either or both might 'beat' the Japanese) in WWII as well.

Prince Harry in fancy dress????

IT WAS FANCY DRESS FOR GOD'S SAKE. I applaud taking taking the out of Nazis.

"And finally, the excessive focus on the Nazi atrocities in WWII…"

"Excessive focus"?

However, I find it significant that there is an almost perfect linear relationship between a society's accomodation with the Nazis at the time and the prohibition of thier symbols.

Those countries which actually fought and bled may disapprove of swastikas, and Nazis, but they do not ban them. Those who collaborated restrict their display and thos who propagated ban them completely. A case, I think of the child being the father of the man.

Given that Poland, for one, has banned use of both the Swastika and the Hammer and Sickle for political purposes this comment is, frankly, both ill-informed and offensive.

But I'm going to have to stop right there….

Tim

Chile, at least has the excuse that it has not had the importance of freedom of expression dropped on its cities in kilotons. That Germany is not alone in repressing freedom of expression is undeniable, but that does not make it right.

Frontovik – high dugeon is one of the most effective tools for mobilising opinion against freedom of expression, its effectiveness does not make it right.

However, I find it significant that there is an almost perfect linear relationship between a society's accomodation with the Nazis at the time and the prohibition of their symbols. Those countries which actually fought and bled may disapprove of swastikas, and Nazis, but they do not ban them. Those who collaborated restrict their display and thos who propagated ban them completely.

Good point.
The reason is: countries where it happened have learned very hard that it can damn well happen anywhere if you let it spread again. Other countries may still believe that it cannot happen to them.

I think Frontovik was pointing out that your "almost perfect linear relationship"-isn't…

Whether Germany, France, Poland, or any other countries that choose to ban the public display of the swastika in order to stifle the growth of Neo-Nazism, is not the point here. It is the apparent inability of the German legal system to differentiate between that goal, and the "criminalization" of anyone who happens to display the same symbol on a toy.

Patrice – it does not happen because of swastikas, any more than flies are spawned by rotten meat. It happens because an entire people rolled over and waited to have their tummy tickled as their government became more and more repressive – with repression of expression leading the way.

Murvhill – I would have thought that someone would have pointed out that Poland fits almost perfectly on the curve, but absent that someone, let us examine Polands record in the period in question:

30th Sept 1938, the Poles pick tha last bones off the Czech carcass;
1st Sept 1939 – Poles start fighting the Germans;
30th Sept 1939 – Poles stop fighting the Germans;

Despite propaganda to the contrary, the Poles actively assisted in the repression of their Jews whilst under German occupation.

I am not aware of the degree to which the Swastika ius banned in Poland today, but if Poland does not lie on my regression line, it lies damned close.

Grizzly,

An element of our timeline of Polish activities seems somewhat skewed, namely the "1st Sept 1939 – Poles start fighting the Germans" part. I assume that you have some awareness that the Poles started fighting the Germans because the latter had invaded Poland.

To claim that Poland lies on or near your regression line is rather perverse given that

1. The Poles fought the Germans in defence of Poland in 1939

2. After that defeat many Polish men fled their country to continue the fight against the Germans, forming army, airforce and naval units in conjunction with Britain (including my uncle Gienek).

3. Warsaw erupted in an uprising in 1944 to try to overthrow the Germans.

4. Poles also formed an army under Soviet control to fight the Germans.

Hardly an accommodation with the Nazis!

As for Poles actively assisting with the repression of the Jews, one needs to remember that anti-semitism was quite normal at that time; even on Guernsey the local authorities assisted in the deportation of the Island's remaining Jews.

link

colin

You could make exactly the same comments about the French, except that:
a) at least they weren't feeding off the crumbs from Hitler's table in 1938;
and
b) they did not wait until they were attacked before they declared war on the Germans.

In a war, the European part of which lasted 5 and a half years, Poland became part of the German Empire after one month. They might have done better had they made common cause with the Czechs than by waiting their turn, but they didnt.

The courage of a few Poles who fought for the French, the Brits and the Sovs does not alter the simple fact that the only country I can think of which bans the Swastika and did not bend its knee to the same symbol is Israel – hardly a meaningful exception to the trend.

Grizzly,

So, because the Poles waited to be attacked by Germany and lost quickly, they fit on your regression line…weird!

As for Israel, it could not have "bent its knee to the same symbol" as it did not come into existence until 1948;).

You really are developing a logical fallacy here.

So, because the Poles waited to be attacked by Germany and lost quickly, they fit on your regression line…weird!

No, they did not wait to be attacked. A year before they were attacked they were complicit with Nazi Germany in the dismemberment of Checkslovakia. Like the Russians they then learned the meaning of the phrase "a falling out among thieves".

As for Israel, it could not have "bent its knee to the same symbol" as it did not come into existence until 1948;).

Now, if I had only known that I might have said of Israel "hardly a meaningful exception to the trend."

Don't bother Grizzly with the facts, he's got his teeth in his argument and won't let go.

Murvhill – I would have thought that someone would have pointed out that Poland fits almost perfectly on the curve, but absent that someone, let us examine Polands record in the period in question:

30th Sept 1938, the Poles pick tha last bones off the Czech carcass;
1st Sept 1939 – Poles start fighting the Germans;
30th Sept 1939 – Poles stop fighting the Germans;

Despite propaganda to the contrary, the Poles actively assisted in the repression of their Jews whilst under German occupation.

I am not aware of the degree to which the Swastika ius banned in Poland today, but if Poland does not lie on my regression line, it lies damned close.

And you have been duped by seeing Poland through 40 years of a Cold War German prism.

It was Germans who told us that the Poles were worse anti-semites then them. Odd that given that anti semitic Poles were the only ones likely to make themselves known to the Germans seeing as assisting Jews in any way in Poland got you and your family shot.

Despite this Poles comprise the single largest national grouping in the Righteous Amongst the Nations at Yad Vashem. But I guess that doesn't fit your narrative.

They also managed to lose something in the region 5,500,000 to 6,000,000 of their pre-war population or around 16%. This, IMO, tends to argue against a passive pro-German population. Again, though, I suppose this doesn't fit your pet theory.

Were there Polish collaborators?

Absolutely.

Everywhere the Germans went they found people to assist them. The whole point of the Anne Frank story is that they were betrayed by an anonymous phone call and that of all the people who turned up to arrest them only one was German. But I don't hear anyone accusing the entire Dutch nation of "actively assisting in the repressing of their Jews".

But don't take my word for any of this read Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning.

""Say, is that an ancient Sanskrit fertility symbol all over your Stukas?"

Make than an ancient Buddhist symbol of The Four Directions, or a Native American symbol for the cycle of life…""

It'll be all over CNN next week, but the Nurnburg trials are going to be re-opened, and this time the Sanskrit-writing buddhists and Native Americans are going to be claiming that "Ve vas only vollowing ohrdaz", or perhaps a Mohican version of the same line.

Oh, and Poland is going to be giving war reparations to the Czech Republic.

Remember, you heard it hear first.

I understand the sensitivity, at 41 I don't know the real horror that symbol brought… but banning it?

Yup. In about a third of the EU, I think.

That makes it an economic argument to NOT use the swastika or other symbols in the same situation in your gaming materials-for-publication.

Unfortunately, the Germans, French, and Poles (and probably more) don't appreciate "Well, someone has to play the bad guys."

"Kaoschallenged" your picture of a swastika half-hidden under some cloth on a tank is inspiring! Could be an useful idea to give a hint of the damn thing on a 28mm model tank without actually showing it.

Yup, consider that idea *yoinked*!

Poland was also the only one of the conquered nations that (despite their understandable hatred for Russians)didn't raise a division of volunteers for the Waffen SS…..

However, I find it significant that there is an almost perfect linear relationship between a society's accomodation with the Nazis at the time and the prohibition of thier symbols.

Correlation does not equal Causation.

Perhaps the perfect linear relationship is actually between the level of a country's destruction at the hands of the Nazi's and the prohibition of their symbols.

Perhaps those that had to rebuild the most after '45 feel they have the most to lose with the resurgence of Neo-Nazism.

Unlike Grizzlymc, I don't see dark motives in the fact that Germany, France, and Poland wish to ban the public display of Nazi symbols. I must say that outside of museums, I don't see much public display of Nazi symbols in Canada nor the US. And that's fine by me. I am however, confused in Germany's stance that a Flames of War supplement may be construed as a criminal publication because of the interpretation of this law. This is an example of a legal system that has trouble with the concept of "intent".

There is nothing sinister, it is perfectly normal human behaviour. It is easier to get worked up over symbols than admit your national failings.

"It is easier to get worked up over symbols than admit your national failings."

Yet Germany has openly and thoroughly addressed its national failings. Germans today acknowledge and recognise the evil of the Third Reich.

So Grizzly, your statement quite misses its target.

Tuscaloosa is correct, Grizzly. What you allude to is exactly the opposite of what happened in post- war Germany.

The root causes of extremist governments everywhere lie in weak constitutions and the repression of what the English speaking world calls "loyal opposition". Banning symbols, however much they may represent the odious, is a clear example of how Germany has failed to grasp the nature of the problem.

You should have given up about 15 posts ago Griz, your argument has fallen apart under the weight of its own contradictions. Now you're introducing straw men to try to keep it going.

I first made the point that authoratarian banning of the symptoms of repression was merely the first step in permitting a repition of that repression over 30 posts ago.

It remains a fact that sunlight is the best disinfectant and a nation which addresses symptoms of a problem rather than root causes is doomed to repeat the problem. As yet the consequences of permitting a state to ban displays of the swatika are relatively benign, but the fundamental weakness is there. If the state can ban displays of the swastika they can ban other matters which they consider to be publicly offensive.

There is no straw man here, liberty includes the right to lie, mis represent and to call for what is wrong, repression includes the right to suppress what is right as well as what is wrong. Those who give the state the right to decide what will and wont be said (or displayed) in public, give away their liberties as well as those of their opponents.

I first made the point that authoratarian banning of the symptoms of repression was merely the first step in permitting a repition of that repression over 30 posts ago.

You have now stopped making sense.

Grizzly is making perfect sense. When you start banning symbols you end up with this
link and this
link

Bowman is right.

If you can justify repressing those with whom you disagree, the notions of John Stuart Mill make no sense whatsoever.

those with whom you disagree

This is the problem.

You can "disagree" or "agree" about opinions. You cannot "disagree" or "agree" with nazism because nazism is not an opinion it is crime and mass murder. This is why nazism and nazi symbols are banned in France.

So the French have banned the symbol used to mark a Buddhist temple? I thought there was an approximation of freedom of religion in France? Even the Germans haven't gone that far.

But we're wandering a *long* way from 'should I use swastikas etc for WW2 German unit identification in my rules?'

I think we've firmly established that for international saleability, you cannot.

As far as using the Swastika in a gaming environment goes, we were a small group in a small city, playing mostly in game stores. We put on many games to draw people into the hobby and to increase our ranks.
Many of the kids that came in were accompanied by a parent. It's a bit difficult to explain to Mrs X why wargaming is a wholesome and worthwhile pastime for her son when she's staring at the Swastikas on the "little toys" on the funny looking table.
I'd say that you have to know your audience. If you're catering to history buffs, then it would be highly appropriate,(if not manditory), to include the Swastica image. If you're marketing to the general populous, descretion would be the better course.

Patrice

Your gross oversimplification of Nazism could, at certain times apply to Communism, most liberation movements and most of the world's great religions.

If you rely on that sort of emotive approach to define who gets freedom of expression and who does not, do not be surprised if you wake up to find that voicing your opinions is criminal because someone has determined that you are really headed towards mass murder.

As to the comercial aspects – depends on how big a comercial market is in authoritarian states which ban the display of the swastika. Most of your buyers will probably be in English speaking countries where it is unlikely to cost many sales.

OP ,
I'd stay safe and maximise your targets .
OT ,
It's better out in the open where it can be ridiculed and opposed for the full measure .
Gmc ,
Most of Europe ( Probably elsewhere too ) speaks English . We all live in authoritarian states .

Many of the kids that came in were accompanied by a parent. It's a bit difficult to explain to Mrs X why wargaming is a wholesome and worthwhile pastime for her son when she's staring at the Swastikas on the "little toys" on the funny looking table.

Simple answer: "Just like in cops and robbers, somebody has to play the bad guys."

My favorite use of the swastika ever in a game is hands-down this one:

It was actually a pretty good game, but that big old Nazi flag on there was and is pretty shocking!

The counters were something to behold also!

Since I do Naval Wargaming some of my German ship miniatures like the Bismarck and Graf Zepplin have the Swastika on them.

I only do this for wargaming/historical purposes and that's all.

Captain Gideon

Grizzlymc
There is nothing emotive in what I wrote. All ideas and all political systems (including our own) have killed and still kill people (directly or indirectly) but the big difference is that killing millions of people just because they were jews or gays or gipsies was one of the main purposes of Nazism. You cannot dream of a nice Nazism without Shoah. Nazism has no meaning without all these organized murders this is why I say that Nazism is not an opinion.

Lion in the Stars
As I wrote in an earlier message, it is not forbidden to use swastikas in wargames in France, what is forbidden is to display a swastika for its political meaning.

Have you visited Cluny medieval museum in Paris you can see this statue of a medieval bishop:

And a funny thing: his face was broken during the French Revolution because the Revolutionaries had forbidden to display the arms and faces of nobility …but they did not know that one day the swastika would become a problem.

Your comments could as easily refer to Tzarist or
Soviet progroms, the callous disregard for need and want inherent in capitalism or the compulsion inherent in collectivism. Equally, just as there are other elements to all these systems there was more to Nazism than death camps.

Much ink has been wasted on the degree to which Hitler believed in the drivel he spoluted and the degree to which it was a simple case of Macchievellism taking advantage of the mood in Germany at the time. My 2c is that he started off as an opportunist and it went to his head.

Nazism pioneered the notion of state/industry partnership, which for all its faults, was the basis of post war European economic reconstruction (and the Tigers explosion in Asia in the '90s. Their use of public works to use under utilised resources would be called Keynsian pump priming. Even their overt militarism can be, and has been justified in terms of a post Versailles Germany. Non of these were illegal, although it may be argued that in them were the seeds of the monstrosity that Germany became in the period 40-45.

What should be illegal in any civilised society is either the acts, incitement or conspiracy, to commit the acts, of mass murder or institutionalised predjudice for which the Nazis are justly notorious. A Swastika is neither a neccesary nor a sufficient condition for either of these things, or even for invading your neighbours.

To make it illegal for people to promote Nazism sounds all well and good, until you look at how easily the word Nazi becomes corrupted. We have fashion nazis, 6mm Nazis (no not the 1/300 scale huns – the ones who call Adler 8mm). Except on TMP, there is no one in the world who cannot be called a Nazi, should it be desirable to shut them up.

Our best protection against Nazism, or the next group horror invented by good thinking people, is an open society in which people poncing around in gay boy black suits with shiny boots and swastikas are there for the world to see, criticise, and preferably ridicule. A strong constitution helps too.

One thing in the original post confused me. You are quite happy to show the Rising Sun flay of Imperial japan, but raise questions over the use of the flag of nazi Germany? Both nations at this time were agressive fascist Imperialst nations who committed atrocities. What is the difference?

The Japs have always been let off a bit lightly for their atrocities – I suspect that there are three causes:

1. Dug out Doug – seemed to be keener on kiss and make up than the Nuremberg people;
2. There was a sense that as non whites, not much more could be expected of the Japs, whereas the huns were…… well, like us;
3. The Japanese atrocities may have had official sanction, but there was never a cold blooded calculated mass murder on the scale of the nearly 20 million people that the Nazis quite deliberately killed – because thay had the impertinence to have been born.

However, I agree that frightfulness, however well developed in Germany, was commonplace in the '30s in Italy, Russia, and Japan. Most of the Eastern European nations, not to mention China, had pretty awful governments when it came to civil liberties.

But there is something special about Nazi frightfulness.