Why World War 2? October 22, 2004

Why we love it

Page:: ( 1 / 3 )

It is said that 1914 saw the end of romantic war, that the nations of the world finally woke up to the horrors of combat. The century before that was the age of imperialism, where nationalism ran rampant after it was awoken by revolutionary France. Nations could do no wrong, they brought "civilization" to Africa, India, East Asia. Europe was the center of the world and nations vied amongst each other for supremacy.

The British, French, Germans, Austrians, Italians and Russians had little doubt of their own moral, social and international superiority. It was manifest destiny on a grand scale, and this pride - both among the leaders and the populace - is what led to the deadly arms races which in turn exploded into the Great War. Each side was confident of victory, wars would be short and the blood would be shed on the other side.

European experience, after all, was based mostly on the recent conflicts in Europe itself, like the Seven Weeks' War between Austria and Prussia, or the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. The lessons of the Crimean War - poor leadership, underestimation of firepower and fortified positions were ignored as being outdated and part of a limited conflict. Similarly, the lessons of the American Civil War were ignored as being a "colonial" matter, a primitive war in an alien environment.

Thus, both sides entered World War I with the highest expectations of glory. Civilian populations cheered the soldiers on, the young men promising to come back to their girls in time for Christmas. Germany's Schlieffen plan commited most of its forces into a wheeling attack through Belgium down into France, forcing an early capitulation of France on the western front and then quickly transfering its forces back to the eastern front, where a minority of Germany's armies were to fight a delaying action along with the Austrians.

Of course, we all know how that turned out. Soldiers dug in to trenches, pounded by artillery and kept down by snipers and machine guns. Old guard generals, learning nothing from successive failures, relying on lessons from wars 40 years old, sent their cavalry to die futilely in between trenches, forced men at gunpoint "over the top" to get slaughtered by withering machine gun fire from enemy trenches - and then blamed their failures on morale. The romance of war was slow to fade on the home front, but no government could disguise the horrific casualties for long.

Thus, the Allies, the winners of World War I, were hesitant to fight another war. People were tired, disillusioned and terrified of another such conflict. American isolationism - difficult enough to overcome during World War I - would dominate the political scene until Pearl Harbor.

A 'good' war

Page:: ( 2 / 3 )

World War II was fought undeniably in self-defense. No westerner or Russian feels guilty over celebrating the victories of 1945. This was not a war of imperialism, but a good war. The Americans who fought are always portrayed as naive farmboys, the Brits as reluctant warriors, and even the stereotypes of "evil Germans" have faded over the decades as societies have come to distinguish between the actions of regular army units and those at extermination camps.

There were no complications in World War II. Poison gas wasn't an issue - Hitler even experienced an attack himself during World War I and knew using it would only result in retaliation and unnecessary suffering by both sides, and of course it was unthinkable for democratically elected leaders to start that. Somehow, even Stalin resisted the urge.

There was barely a camera per army. There was no one to record atrocities. There was no such thing as an atrocity at the time - the enemy was Germany. Not the German army, but the entire nation - that's total war. Allied acts like the fire bombing of Hamburg or Dresden, which in their short tenures exceeded all the casualties London sustained during the Blitz of 1940-41, were simply acts of war. Civilian populations died, but these were civilians in a total war - whether they made razor blades, farmed food or produced munitions, they were helping the German war effort. Civilians, especially in Poland and Russia, were as restless and rebellious as those in Vietnam. The same Russian or Pole a German soldier saw helping an old lady across the street might be the one shooting him at night.

The conflict in Korea still belongs to the World War II-era. There was nobody there to report what was going on. It was a noble war - saving the poor people of Korea from communism - and while concerns about casualties and the possibility of war expansion were present, the war had support. Of course, Korea was a much smaller war, not nearly as epic or against a powerful a foe as Germany - not to mention we could never claim outright victory. It has never held the mystique of World War 2.

Vietnam was too a noble conflict, at least at the outset. A similar situation to Korea, but it had extra complications. The United States, in its efforts to thwart communism, supported regimes of questionable worth. Ho Chi Minh had fought for Vietnamese autonomy and later independence all his life - first by petitioning France, the colonial power in Indochina, then at Versailles in 1919, later by courting the US during World War 2. Eventually, the Vietnamese rebelled and won a war against France. Ho Chi Minh was the popular leader, not those in the South, the Republic of Vietnam. Of course, the political complications of needing France as an ally and keeping communism down had US supporting French regimes and later the South Vietnamese government, neither of which was particularly popular.

Atrocities were committed in Vietnam by both sides - there is no doubt. My Lai is the most obvious case but undoubtedly there were more. In a war where villagers smile at you in the day day and plant traps near your base by night, it becomes difficult to distinguish civilian from enemy. It's an almost unwinnable situation unless you're willing to adopt extreme, genocidal measures. Furthermore, Vietnam was reported on. Daily reports, briefings, updates. That's how TV ratings were achieved - show the most shocking story. There were no more carefully choreographed camera crews filming happy news reels for home. The realities of war were shown. As the nations of Europe learned after World War I - there can be no romantic illusions of war when the full horror of it becomes evident.

War, we love it

Page:: ( 3 / 3 )

In general though, war, as horrific as it is, holds a particular fascination for people. You need only look at our history, our reading material, our televisions, movie theaters and interactive entertainment to see that. War existed before video games and it will exist long after we stop playing.

Sports are fascinating because they're competitions. We always want to watch the best players play at their best, be at their most motivated. If money drives someone to compete, we give it to them. We don't care if coaches play mind games, if the best player on the team is benched or traded so long as the team wins. Cities identify with their teams the way nations identify with their armies. The degree of animosity is obviously much lower, but the base feeling is the same.

We love to gamble. Monaco, Vegas, Reno, Atlantic City, and a whole lot of native american reservations can testify to that. One of the most popular forms of gambling is sports gambling - not only are you cheering for a team, not only are you betting money, but you're cheering for your team by betting money on it. There's a higher stake in that - not just of money, but of team pride.

War is the ultimate team game with the highest possible stakes. People die - by the dozen, hundreds, thousands, millions. Nations are created or cease to exist. The course of history is changed. Every bullet an elderly factory worker makes might be the one that kills the great general, every bomb could be the one that destroys the key factory or bridge. As horrific as it is, war brings us together. Yet, we do feel guilty about it. Missing loved ones, testimonies of soldiers sick of blood on their hands, or those consumed by their hatred of the enemy, the leaders who always wonder what they could have done to save their men or kill more of the enemy - this is all guilt in one way or another.

World War II is that war without guilt, except perhaps for members of the Axis. We won a noble war, despite the atrocities - because we don't think of the atrocities. They never penetrated our consciousness. When we think of Vietnam, we do think of soldiers forced to shoot at people who may or may not be civilians. When we think of World War II, we don't think of Hamburg or Dresden. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are swept away with the knowledge that a land war in Japan would be more horrific. We'd rather not know that our leadership deliberately marked Hiroshima and Nagasaki free of regular bombing in order to maximize the shock of a nuclear blast. That there were refugees in those cities because they seemed safe... well... not our problem. It saved lives in the end, right? We weren't the ones who started the war.

Such is our thinking. In our games, we don't even fight Germans any more - it's always Nazis. It's as if Nazis were a different breed, volunteers, a sort of oppressor race of the noble German people. It's easy to forget that Hitler was legally elected. It's good to forget this most of the time too - the last time we squeezed Germany after winning a war was in 1919 at Versailles, where Germany's humiliation eventually led it down a hostile path to regain its international pride.

Nazis, Zombies, Robots, Aliens, Ninjas and Pirates are our enemies. We can never feel guilt about killing hordes of them. Of course, Nazis are the most relevant, the most realistic. They put up a great fight and we love re-telling war stories where we win. As satisfying as it is to blast a monster's head off, it's better to compete with a known quantity - a human. It's our instinct. We'd feel guilty about it, but he's not real. Even if he was real, he'd just be the clear-cut, no bones about it bad guy - a Nazi.

It's not that World War II is the only politically correct safe ground for game developers. It's simply the setting we're most comfortable with. Or do you think that Custer's Revenge is due for a re-make?

That's my bag of hot air for the next little while. Post a topic in the Games forum to discuss.