"All Bad Guys ..." Topic

Uptart !

should be Upstart !

The English Civil War. Don't see any good on either side. I like gaming the period but I don't favor either side. Their all bad guys.

Uptart races sound like armies that wear too much makeup.

That would be amusing judgement coming from the Eldar, the race that gave us the Harlequins.

Wow this subject got way too deep for its own good! That said Fred made a good point earlier about the difference between waffen ss and regular army. The waffen and ss overall were fanatical racist monsters who had no problem torturing and murdering numerous ethnic groups, the regular army had no such desires and every history book that delves into it will tell you they hated the ss and usually would not support or fight with them. The regular army leadership tried numerous times to assassinate Hitler to no avail, they weren't evil just incompetent in this regard. The nazis themselves and there military wing the waffen, no argument pure absolute evil period. I think waffen vs red army kinda fits bad vs bad because remember that same red army when they thought they were friends with nazi Germany happily marched into eastern Poland and committed plenty of atrocities and political imprisonments. Follow that with the invasions of Finland and parts of eastern Europe before Germany even planned to attack russia shows Stalin had just as evil intentions as there nazi allies so no noble ruskies there I'm afraid. In closing even the west did questionable things they couldnt get away with now like the brutal wholesale bombing of civilian cities like Dresden. Clearly though the west was fighting for the right cause just doing it a bit clumsily. Now that said if you want to tell me everyone in WW1 was equally selfish and "bad" I can listen to that argument! :)

Thank you for this nuanced view of WW2.

Agree with john d law, except I don't think that the regular German army assasination attempts were particulary incompetent. They weren't successful. But you have to take into account that they were working in an environment of extreme suspicion and treachery (even to the point of kids narcing out their parents) and sever retribution (making an example of many for the acts of one). Because of that, they tended toward high risk attempts (specifically, limiting your intelligence by keeping the group small). The fact that they attempted anything at all in that environment shows how committed to the cause they were.

I also agree that this got too deep too quick. I think as a poll with multiple guess answers, that might be mitigated.

Guys the myth that the Wehrmacht was innocent bystanders to the SS has been dispelled for quite some time now. Not only the Wehrmacht but the German Police participated in war crimes.

"The Israeli historian Omer Bartov, a leading expert on the Wehrmacht wrote in 2003 that the Wehrmacht was a willing instrument of genocide, and that it is simply untrue that the Wehrmacht was an apolitical, professional fighting force that had only a few "bad apples"."

link

link

It is my understanding that Valkyrie was a botched operation. From the inadequate amount of explosives to the failure of accounting for the seizer of the main telephone offices. Hitler was actually able to phone Goebbels to tell him he was alive. Didn't Goebbels himself say they were a bunch of amateurs? They should have cut off as much of the communications as possible.

Take this example from General Smedley Butler, highly decorated US Marine Corps general:-
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Thanks, this is very interesting. I did not want to comment this topic when it began, but it's exactly what I felt:
"Bad guys" and "good guys" is too easy from everyone's point of view.
In the late 19th century, many politicians of European countries honestly felt that they were doing a great "civilizing" job when invading and colonizing Africa etc, and so we were the "good guys". But when local people reacted (and sometimes they reacted violently) they called them "bad guys".
And later, when some people of South America reacted about what General Smedley Butler describes, they were called "bad guys" too (some of them were Cuba or Nicaragua or Grenada).
John complains about "US bashing", but I don't intend this, I've been an ACW reenactor in France and I loved it.

The three Socialist systems of the 20th century, Nazism, Fascism, and and Communism.

Fascism and it's more radical form Nazism are considered by most scholars to be on the extreme right in the political spectrum and not strictly socialist. Fascism and Nazism does not nationalize industry it uses private industry to serve the state. Nazism by doctrine claims ethnic superiority of one group over an other.

Fascism and Nazism are considered reactionary where as socialism is not. Communism in theory is not reactionary but in practice it was reactionary in order to hold on to power.

Socialism is on the left in the political spectrum. Communism is on the extreme left of the political spectrum.

Socialism emphasizes publicly-owned or cooperatively-owned enterprises operating in a market economy. Where as Communism is further left in that it eliminates nearly all private enterprise. In theory (but often not in practice) all ethnic groups are equal. In theory everyone is equal.

This is why the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany where polar opposites and natural enemies. The two parties clashed in Germany with the Nazis coming out on top. It also explains why the German-Soviet pact prior to the invasion of Poland in 1939 was such a shock.

There has been a lot of mis-information spreading around and it centers on the term "National Socialist." National Socialism as practiced by the Nazis is different from left wing socialism. Same word, different meanings and goals. Nazi/Fascist and Communist states are one party systems.

Socialism is more often a democratic movement that does not use force to stay in power. Socialist parties are voted in and out of power in democratic elections in many countries.

>>>The Angolan Border War tends to tick that box. Lots of different factions – UNITA, FAPLA, FNLA, SWAPO-PLAN, SADF, Cuba and USSR – none of them remotely pleasant

Do you REALLY consider the South African Border War as a "bad guys killing other bad guys" afair in the same league as say the Ostfront in WW2 or the iran/Iraq war? make no mistake about it. The South Africans were not exactly squeeky clean, but in a contest between an expanionist Communist country backed by the Soviets and Cubans vs. a country that although it did oppress a large percentage of it's own population was not really a threat to anyone outside of it's own borders, I'll support the latter evry time. Clearly I'm not alone in that thnking given US policy at the time.

I'm assuming you hold a similar view on The Rhodesian Bush War as well? (a defacto White minority government vs. two Communist backed terrorist groups and a Marxist neighboring state)

As to the original question posed by the thread, I certainly agree that there exists scenarios that are "bad guys killing bad guys". The two I mentioned (the Ostfront and Iran/Iraq) being good examples. I would include the Spanish Civil War as well as you have extreme leftists against Fascists. I certainly have no trouble playing a game with no clearly defined "good guys".

Early in our relationship, my wife was asked if she had any troubles determining who to root for while she was watching me play a WW2 Ostfront game. Her reply probably mirrors many people's views on such things: "I'm rooting for my husband's side!"

Martin

What about the 30 Years War?

'Not exactly squeaky clean'?!

The fact that the MPLA and SWAPO-PLAN were repulsive does not make South Africa remotely pleasant – just marginally less repulsive.

It's easy to cast blame when sat nice and snug behind a keyboard. Things start to look a lot less straight forward when your down there in the dirt scared "Bleep"less. Especially if you have to answer to a political officer who can arrange for your entire family to go to a death camp or be shot out of hand. or if your not actually certain who the enemy is, or who is supporting them. Combat fatigue seems to do odd things to your morale compass.

Someone also said:
"In closing even the west did questionable things they couldnt get away with now like the brutal wholesale bombing of civilian cities like Dresden."

In the UK we have Trident, the French have their Nuclear deterrant as does the USA and almost certainly Isreal. All are "Western" powers. As a deterrant these only work because we would absolutely use them in something that would makes Dresden look like a playground argument the fact that we would only do so if the other side started throwing theirs around first doesn't change anything…civilians would still die in their millions. No one is completely squeaky clean and none of us are totally good guys. Even playing a wargame could be (and often is) argued to be morally reprehensible.

Have to go now my man eating killer orcs are about to assault a heavily defended satanist convent. You work out who the good guys are :-)

I usually set up all good guys games. Each side thinks its war aims are just. That's how I write operations orders for each side.

I have read recently (possibly in "The Siege of Budapest" by Krisztian Ungvary) that recent scholarship has assessed the political attitudes of the WW2 Wehrmacht as ten percent fervent Nazis, ten percent silent anti-Nazis, and eighty percent largely apolitical. That having been said, the operations of the Einsatzcommandos, especially in the East, could not possibly have gone unnoticed. It is also quite certain that both Waffen SS and Wehrmacht detachments were detailed to lend assistance (Forczyk's "Where the Iron Crosses Grow" makes that clear). Nevertheless, condemning all those who served in the German armed forces of WW2 as Nazi war criminals is IMO a facile verdict delivered from a very comfortable armchair far removed from the dramatic consequences faced by any soldier by defying intimidating weight of the political power structure and the military hierarchy.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

English Civil War. Love the period. In my opinion both sides are bad. I don't like either one.

etotheipi
But seriously, I am surprised that this topic immediately got overrun with broad geopolitical theorizing. I was expecting more on the bad guy rivalry front … gang wars, anarchist rivalries, blood feuds,…

You are kidding right?
You toss out the word "War" and then the terms "Good Guys / Bad Guys" and your 'really" surprised it turned into a 'free for all' of politics, nationalism and economic opinions (to put it kindly).