"Nationalism and The Great War" Topic

Do you include nationalism in your scenario designs for the period?

link

Jon
greenfieldsbeyond.wordpress.com

Dear Jon

I don't see how this can be done. It's sort of "in the air" isn't it? Nationalism in the very personal is a state of mind or basic assumption and belief how then in the individual will it differ one from the other be they English, French, German, Russian etc. Further DOES nationalism affect the individual in combat? On the other hand going to the other end yes nationalism is a factor in the war, but again as everyone has it….

I don't see how it is necessary to include as a factor in scenario design. Is one side "more" nationalistic than the other?

On the other hand are you talking about trying to model aspects or traits of nationalism from country to country, that is, claiming a difference between "British" nationalism, and "German" nationalism?

This gets very tricky when you get to Austrian "nationalism.
" for example. I know that in that time there were people who had completely German names in Bohemia who thought the the Bohemian-Czech culture and race was the greatest, and those who had Czech names (like my mother) who thought that the Germans were the master race (before Hitler ever dreamed it up for WWII) and that THEY were part of it.

Nationalism is a very strange thing and does not always typify easily as the history books would have us believe.

Now to be completely truthful I don't do anyting in WWI at the moment, though I do a lot in "Between the Wars" games, which can be run for 1914 onward to about 1943 with the addition or deletion of various rules.

Nationalism can yield some very bizarre things, and some rather unpleasant things, but it can also have very beneficial and not at all malevolent manifestations.

But I can't see how you cram it into a game design.

Otto

Give your own national preference +1. That seems to be the most realistic way.

No. Nationalism rules a political goal, not a military one. It would be on a strategic level, which (because of the size) almost never rules our games. This does of course not mean that nationalism is not important ! But since "strategy" is the science that conducts formulating the objectives of the war (which is the continuation of politics with other means) and "tactics" is the science that conducts formulating the placing and moves of troops on a (preferably chosen) battlefield. And that last thing is what we do.

if you look at nationalism only 'at the top'
that is the political stuff
"we need living room!"
and I agree you really can't model that in tactical miniature

but at the 'bottom'
the personal stuff
"I am a Turk and therefore hot stuff"
that could be modeled in say the moral rules

AH Squad Leader design notes mention this
for example
American troops can break more easily
but will rally more quickly as well

I more often see it in the reverse. I favor French armies in the 20th century conflicts and almost always find myself arguing for a more "representative" and fair rules application for the French.

I think it might feature in morale of units on the ground. I'll use a very dubious example for the Great War and that is of units of my own countrymen – the ANZACs.

All volunteers (and I think this does make a very real difference) Australia was only a newly created country and the particular form of jingoistic nationalism at that time manifested itself in Australians going abroad with something to prove.

We had stringent health and physical standards to enlist – we were a small population but wanted to send out tallest, strongest and best. It stemmed from a form of cultural immaturity – not so much an inferiority complex but politically we wanted to be recognised and approved of by our imperial masters.

We need to be careful in falling for our own press and self deception – everyone likes to think their military traditions are superior. In the field; however, Australian units repeatedly pulled off unlikely results in the theatres they operated in. The negative stemming from this was our habit of over-reaching – something we continued to do in the Second World War.

I tend to believe that on average, volunteers from Commonwealth countries outperformed their conscripted brothers from the 'motherland' because of attitude, pay and conditions – and their own brands of nationalism. We were not led by sons of an anachronistic aristocracy and we weren't shot for cowardice – we rejected the death penalty.

In WWII we talked much about the fanaticism of the Japanese, the Bushido code, their ruthlessness, callous treatment of prisoners and devotion to the Emperor – translating into some very strong field performances in combat morale. What we don't ever talk about is the racial superiority white men assumed over the 'yellow horde' and how our mockery turned to hatred in the face of loss and desperation. Racism and hatred translates well into combat morale.

I agree that any place you'd want to put nationalism should be the morale rules.

Bash Flames of War all you want, but I like how they handled the Japanese in terms of morale rules.