Freespace (was HL2 thread)
- Thread starter Maj.Striker
- Start date
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
Hmm, I presonnally thought Starship Troopers was an awesome movie. ("Would you like to know more?"). I watch it from time to time because it's just plain fun to watch, the best part, IMHO is in bootcamp. Okay, so it didn't quite follow the book, I can name at least a hundred Hollywood videos that didn't follow their respective books...that's why you always hear somebody say, "Oh, the book was so much better." That's just an accepted standard in the industry, everyone knows the book was better. Let's put it like this: Starship Troopers was as good an adaption of the Starship Troopers book by Heinlein as the Wing Commander Movie was of the Wing Commander video games. Neither followed their respective source material precisely but each are both quite fun to watch if your willing to look past what you "expect" to see.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Mister Vonnegut's aphorism doesn't necessarily make sense. You can't be against something because you know it'll happen?
(Besides, both warfare and earthquakes are things which, while unavoidable, can value from commentary. I'm against earthquakes -- and I'll tell you how to build your cities so they cause less damage. How society treats war is certainly very important - conflict is unavoidable, but the shape in which people accept it is in constant flux.)
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
That's pretty much it, yeah. For example, you just said you're against earthquakes, but this is clearly not true (unless you're a nutcaseBandit LOAF said:
), because you're well aware that there's nothing you can do to stop (or even start, for that matter) earthquakes - and how can you suggest that we should try to stop earthquakes (which is what "being against earthquakes" would mean), when we have no control over them? All you can do is suggest we should minimise their impact (which is not in any way "anti-earthquake").Of course, many "anti-war" movies are not really anti-war movies, but rather war movies that wish to show the more painful aspects of war. Such films are fine, useful, and indeed valuable (and SST, where the 'anti-war' aspect is so subtle that it's easy to think the whole thing is pro-war, can probably be described as such a movie). I really don't have a problem with such films (except that I don't like the "anti-war" label being used to describe them) - my problems is with films that suggest all war is bad, and peace is always preferable (i.e., films that really are anti-war). I'm sure you can understand why I might feel that way, given that 20th century Europe (including my country) suffered tens of millions of "casualties of war" that could have been easily avoided had the anti-war obsession not allowed WWI and WWII to spiral out of control - because both those wars could have ended up as insignificant, one-month affairs that people only barely remember.
Delance
Victory, you say?
Good point, anti-war sentiment did some real damage on Europe. And also there's the question of a hidden agenda behind the apparenlty noble Anti-War theme. That's not to say that anyone should be Pro-War, it's just that such positions should not be absolute, like on the Earthquake case.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you, at least on the point of World War 2. The only way that WW2 could have been avoided was for the Fuhrer to have been assasinated or somehow removed from power. Despite Hitler's insistance that he only wanted peace, he was implacable in his demands for territory. He actually stand up to strong demands issued by both France, England, Czechlosavakia (sp?) and Poland. Poland had issued a stern demand against Germany that both France and England supported but Germany waltzed by force of arms through the country within a few short days...the battle was over before England or France could even move to support Polish troops. Similarly, German Panzers rolled through France in mere days as well...this was accomplished by force meeting force. You can explain some of those things by saying that anti-war sentiment was at work but you can't explain it all...no country should be defeated that handily, that quickly. You can't say in all sincerity that if there hadn't been an anti-war sentiment that the German juggernaut would have been stunted.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Germany "waltzed" through Poland for over a month before the battle was over (no idea why people think it ended after 'a few short days' - go read a history book ). By the end of the campaign, German troops were reporting chronic shortages of fuel and ammo. Meanwhile, the western border of German was defended by a handful of reserve divisions, while the British and French forces that had amassed on that border stood around doing nothing, because they still hoped for a peaceful solution. So yes, with a bit more common sense and a bit less anti-war madness, everyone could have been home by Christmas.
(besides, had WWI been handled better, WWII wouldn't have happened by default, since the two conflicts were very closely tied in terms of cause-and-effect)
). By the end of the campaign, German troops were reporting chronic shortages of fuel and ammo. Meanwhile, the western border of German was defended by a handful of reserve divisions, while the British and French forces that had amassed on that border stood around doing nothing, because they still hoped for a peaceful solution. So yes, with a bit more common sense and a bit less anti-war madness, everyone could have been home by Christmas.(besides, had WWI been handled better, WWII wouldn't have happened by default, since the two conflicts were very closely tied in terms of cause-and-effect)
criticalmass
Vice Admiral
Now, let's all sing "We shall overcome" together.
But if this is all politics and philosophy, told in movies and games to propagate a critical view towards the causes and effects of violence (to skirt the pro/anti terminology trap) - then what are the games we are playing?
In movies, depiction of violence is regarded as noble as long as it shows its painful and destructive side, and makes the audience think about motives and justification.
But in games we're served motives and justification to act out violence, with the questions of pain and loss being handled by the storyline, not the audience's conscience.
Is this the aspect why Freespace never really caught - no compassion, no sense of moral border, no reflection about the source and the outlook for the conflict, just "let's go blow up stuff"?
But if this is all politics and philosophy, told in movies and games to propagate a critical view towards the causes and effects of violence (to skirt the pro/anti terminology trap) - then what are the games we are playing?
In movies, depiction of violence is regarded as noble as long as it shows its painful and destructive side, and makes the audience think about motives and justification.
But in games we're served motives and justification to act out violence, with the questions of pain and loss being handled by the storyline, not the audience's conscience.
Is this the aspect why Freespace never really caught - no compassion, no sense of moral border, no reflection about the source and the outlook for the conflict, just "let's go blow up stuff"?
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
Quarto said:Germany "waltzed" through Poland for over a month before the battle was over (no idea why people think it ended after 'a few short days' - go read a history book
(besides, had WWI been handled better, WWII wouldn't have happened by default, since the two conflicts were very closely tied in terms of cause-and-effect)
I have read history my friend...
On September 1, 1939, the Axis invaded Poland. On September 3rd, Lodz was about to fall, and Krakow fell on September 6. The fort at Danzig fell on September 7, after a week of direct fire from German battleships. By the 16th Warsaw was surrounded and ringed by artillery. The real battle was over then...it merely took until October 1st for the whole thing to become official (i.e. the Russians came in mopped up the remnants. Kinda interesting, the Russians came in saying they were there to help them against the Germans...most Polish units were overwhelmed before they knew what was going on). I think a few short days is an ample explanation...see Webster's definition of few:
Few - Not many; small, limited, or confined in number; --
indicating a small portion of units or individuals
constituing a whole; often, by ellipsis of a noun, a few
people. ``Are not my days few?'' --Job x. 20.
Perhaps your definition of few and my definition vary...
criticalmass
Vice Admiral
milo said:
Ironically, that's exactly my sentiment in it, Milo. A half-dead human being stuck to the ceiling in a room, screaming in agony, is quite a terrifying statement - and I've heard most of the people playing Doom3 saying that sooner or later they need to stop playing because it gets too much on their nerves.
That doesn't ever happen with the absurdly non-human bugs in FS or WC, where killing is depicted less in effect, and only in means; a mere strategy game.
Hey, and by the way:
The argument went along the lines that Germany came to "free" Poland from partial Russian occupation, if I remember correctly (although the "liberation" argument was much stronger in use by the Soviet troops between 1943 and '44 when driving out the Germans [killing a lot of civilians in the process], and again by the Germans shortly taking Warsaw back from the Russians in '44 [and destroying it in the process])... And so on.
That's why any thinking about the logic and necessity of war for me is futile. Conflict feeds on itself, and will not be stopped by more conflict.
Which is also why this thread still isn't closed, obviously.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Then go re-read itMaj.Striker said:
. I'm not gonna bother arguing this point here, because... well, because it's a Freespace thread 
. Still, I will say two things:1. Significant resistance lasted until start of October. And had the Allies launched their attack on Germany before the 17th of September, the Soviets would have held back - Stalin was determined to play this one safe, that's why he waited so long.
2. This "Poland did not fight long enough" argument is irrelevant, given that the anti-war movement had started screwing things up back in 1933, not 1939. When Hitler came to power, Poland suggested going to war almost immediately. They abandoned the idea when it turned out that their ally France would not support such 'adventures'. Then you've got France allowing Hitler to re-militarise the Rhineland in 1936, and then you've got France and the UK forcing Czechoslovakia to surrender in 1938. September 1939 was merely the last of many opportunities to end the thing early. In all four cases, Germany could have been beaten with ease.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
Quarto said:
With ease? I doubt it. I'm not really interested in a debate (mainly because I have the utmost respect for you, Quarto, your posts are always sound, logical and typically backed up with a plethora of information and facts). However, when you consider it took 3 strong superpowers (namely: Russia, England and America) along with several allies (remnants of Polish, French and Czech troops and aviators) to bring Germany down, I don't think Poland, even with French and English support would have instantly stopped Germany. The only sure stop would have been to move immediately after Hitler had assumed power. (as you suggested in 1933-34). This was not feasible because at this time Germany was not a threat to anyone and (relatively speaking) had not done anything to anyone. It would be like the US invading Mexico if someone they didn't like was elected (admitted that could happen...). By the time Hitler really did something that the English and French and, yes, Poland could condemn and have justification to stand up against, Germany had a rebuilt military that would have fielded a heavy fight. (Yes, I do think they would have lost but it still would have been a major war that probably would not have involved the US).
Hindsight is 20/20, we can look back and say if this person or that person had just done this or that then the whole thing could have been avoided. What's actually more scary is just how one or two things could have wound up with the majority of the world speaking German right now. The French made a huge mistake when they allowed Hitler to reoccupy the Rhineland...that single action caused Hitler to know that he could bluff his way to strength. Fortunately for the rest of the world, Hitler made three massive major mistakes that crippled his war machine.
1.) He allowed thousands of British and French soldiers to escape Dunkirk by specifically ordering his ground troops to hold off the assault and let Goring's Luftwaffe "pound" the city (something they truly failed to do). The capture of those troops would have severely weakened the British army and demoralized the country.
2.) He wasted valuable resources invading Greece and Yugoslavia because of a resulting coup that failed to align the government with his wishes. The invasions delayed his operation Barbarossa (invasion of Russia) by a month (a month of which time could have easily put his troops in Moscow). As a follow up to this mistake, he ordered to hold off his armies from entering Moscow thereby delaying its offensive for another month when they had a legitimate chance of capturing it because he wanted it razed to the ground a great lake made in its place. The failure to seize Moscow and take up defensive positions for the winter was a failure that devastated the German army.
3.) He allowed the US to become involved. This was perhaps unavoidable, but Germany had legitimate support within the US from millions of citizens that hated Communism and from an isolationist majority, when Japan declared war on the US, Germany followed shortly thereafter with a declaration thereby removing all "guilt" or difficulty that Roosevelt would have had to deal with in declaring simultaneous war with Germany and Japan.
And History goes on... The fact is, several things could have happened but they didn't so we have what we have. But as a matter of personal opinion, I think it's actually easier to see how the Germans could have won rather than been defeated. For one thing, especially in the early stages of the war, we saw how particularly effective German armor was...and although the other countries had tanks none were nearly as effective early on as the German's. Let's not forget that at the time of the invasion of Poland, Russia and Germany were allies...its not infeasible to hypothesize that this friendship could have continued with the right administration...an alliance that could have shredded England.
Interestingly to see how this FS thread turned into a small debate over the possibilities to stop Germany in the early stages of the war
I agree that the anti-war movement messed up a lot things (although it is a noble cause). I can look on my own country (Sweden) as proof of that. Sweden managed to stay out of both world wars. The reason for that is some amount of good politics and a huge amount of luck. The reason for Swedens desired neutrality was that the anti-war movement had led to huge cuts in defence spending (anyone remembering the mothballing of the confederations fleet at the time of the Kilrathi truce 2668?).
The result of these cuts was that the swedish armed forces was in no shape to defend Sweden in case of an attack.
Although the goverment woke up in 1936 and increased defence spending it was to late. The armed forces were ready to withstand an attack in 1946(!).
I agree that the anti-war movement messed up a lot things (although it is a noble cause). I can look on my own country (Sweden) as proof of that. Sweden managed to stay out of both world wars. The reason for that is some amount of good politics and a huge amount of luck. The reason for Swedens desired neutrality was that the anti-war movement had led to huge cuts in defence spending (anyone remembering the mothballing of the confederations fleet at the time of the Kilrathi truce 2668?).
The result of these cuts was that the swedish armed forces was in no shape to defend Sweden in case of an attack.
Although the goverment woke up in 1936 and increased defence spending it was to late. The armed forces were ready to withstand an attack in 1946(!).
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Well, see, that's the thing - hindsight, as a matter of fact, is almost never 20/20. This is an example of that. The Wehrmacht is a legendary force, and its legend is hard-earned and well-deserved... but the Wehrmacht of legend is the Wehrmacht of 1941, not of 1939. Remember, Germany spent those two years most profitably - it imported vast quantities of resources from the Soviet Union, it secured the support (both material and military) of Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, it made good use of Czech military factories (Bohemia had once been the industrial heart of Austro-Hungary!) and it developed incredibly effective equipment for its forces.Maj.Striker said:
The Wehrmacht was not, however, a force that miraculously appeared in all its glory when Hitler waved his magic wand.
In 1936, it was a joke - Poland had technological superiority (and possibly numeric as well, but I don't know offhand the Wehrmacht's size circa 1936).
In 1938, it was still a joke - to this day, the debate still rages on whether Czechoslovakia could have fended off Hitler by itself, given that its border with Germany had fortifications as good as France's legendary Maginot line, and that it had better tanks. That bears repeating - Czechoslovakia had better tanks. The Germans later used Czech tanks, before developing better tanks of their own. Czechoslovakia gave in not because they were doomed by default, but because they were completely isolated in the west (and because their own arrogant foreign policies had left them isolated in the east). It's a little difficult to remain confident in your victory when your supposed allies act as if they're too scared to help you.
And finally, in 1939, it was a force to be reckoned with, with excellent commanders, but it had no endurance. I wasn't kidding when I said earlier that German forces were experiencing shortages of fuel and ammo by the time the Polish campaign was finished - Germany really did lack the resources and logistical support to conduct an extended campaign, and four weeks was already pushing the envelope. Had the Soviets not intervened, there would have been a stalemate... and a stalemate, in the situation where Poland's able to get fresh supplies through Romania and Hungary while Germany is isolated and completely sealed off can only mean one thing: Polish victory. And the Soviets would not have intervened, had Britain and France demonstrated their intent to actually help their ally.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
I'd disagree with you, Quarto, on a few things. We both agree the Wehrmacht was a strong powerful force in the course of World War 2. You mentioned that in 1936 it was a joke, perhaps it was and then again, perhaps it wasn't. Regardless, at that time there was absolutely no good provocation for anyone to declare war on Germany. Britain was friendly towards Germany at this point, many heads of government posts had a very postive view towards Germany. King Edward of England had good German friends, England had no reason to fight Germany. France wasn't about to do anything without England. The reoccupation of the Rhineland you could say was enough provocation but England viewed the re occupation favorably because they already felt the war reparations was too heavy against Germany...again, they were friendly. I can't really say that enough, thousands of English citizens felt Germany was to be their greatest ally. In fact, when Ribbentropps left England in 1939 (I believe?) thousands of English citizens wished him well and felt he would be back soon as friendly relations would be restored.
Your ascertainment that Polish forces had technological military equivalency or superiority is very tainted though. The Polish calvary divisions though perhaps equal in number were no match for the German tanks. They would have been slaughtered on the plains of Poland in 1936 just as they were in 1939. Three years would not have made a noticeable difference there.
On Czechloslavakia, you're right, they should have stood up to Germany. They had a decent military, strong entrenchment and a good industrial backing. However, Czechloslavakia was Hitler's greated political victory. Captured without a shot...
You have suggested that the Germany military proved in 1941 its strength but that as early as 1938-39 it was still a joke. Again, I doubt it. The same generals that led and outsmarted their counterparts in 1941 were in place in 1938-39. Jodl, Keitel, Brauchitsch and company still were in command then (with actually less of Hitler's interference during this time period) and still (I believe) could field one hell of a major offensive.
Your ascertainment that Polish forces had technological military equivalency or superiority is very tainted though. The Polish calvary divisions though perhaps equal in number were no match for the German tanks. They would have been slaughtered on the plains of Poland in 1936 just as they were in 1939. Three years would not have made a noticeable difference there.
On Czechloslavakia, you're right, they should have stood up to Germany. They had a decent military, strong entrenchment and a good industrial backing. However, Czechloslavakia was Hitler's greated political victory. Captured without a shot...
You have suggested that the Germany military proved in 1941 its strength but that as early as 1938-39 it was still a joke. Again, I doubt it. The same generals that led and outsmarted their counterparts in 1941 were in place in 1938-39. Jodl, Keitel, Brauchitsch and company still were in command then (with actually less of Hitler's interference during this time period) and still (I believe) could field one hell of a major offensive.