I am anxious to find out how my last mailing method worked out for MWANers. Did your MWAN arrive undamaged? Please drop me an e-mail and let me know if it did not. It will be replaced at no expense to you. The move to having my printer handle the bulk mailing is an attempt to keep MWAN going. The time and energy required to stamp envelopes, affix address labels, stuff and seal, sort by state and then by zip code is great and after doing it for twenty years, it becomes a dreaded task. Another reason however, remains that the task of visually recognizing states and zip codes while sorting is growing increasingly more difficult. If this system is not working, as evidenced by a sufficient number of copies being damaged in the mail, I shall have to make a decision to either go back to doing it on my own or discontinuing MWAN. Please take the time to read Sam Mustafa's excellent article "The Games We Play and how people see them!" before continuing your reading of my editorial (did I really say that?!). I have not seen the subject of how others view our hobby discussed in a more intelligent and thought provoking fashion. Sam, by the way, has joined MWAN's editorial staff and will generate a regular column. My thoughts on the subject are as follows: I have occasionally encountered, over the years, reactions similar to what Sam's friend, Tariq, related to him. "How can you play a 'game' involving not only the deaths of soldiers, but all of the misery brought about by war?" I should add, however, that the vast majority of responses I received when explaining what my hobby consists of fall under the "interest" category. They can appreciate my love of toy soldiers, uniforms, history (both military and non-military), and painting. In attempting to explain to the few who find it questionable from an ethical point of view (distasteful might be another word to use), I never really do a good job, in my mind. I am usually taken off guard to some degree and fumble around stating that one of the things I am interested in is how war affects the average soldier; how does it happen that you can send a human being into a situation where they are asked to kill someone else and run the risk of being killed themselves. Well, this is pretty inadequate and doesn't account for why I try to portray war on the tabletop and I realize that as I am halfway through attempting to justify my interest. I talk about how my study of military history has evolved into a need to know more about the non-military aspects of the time period and how they influenced military history. Still doesn't explain much, does it. One would really need to spend a lot of time with the person posing these questions and do some thinking in-between discussions to come up with the reasons why they could make a "game" of war. If we really look at this issue, I believe, and examine it closely, there can not be any possible logical justification for what we do. If we examine what "war" means, we have to come up with the following: Soldiers kill other soldiers Soldiers maim other soldiers physically and emotionally Soldiers kill and maim non-soldiers physically and emotionally War damages or destroys physical structures (i.e., homes), disrupts society, creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety, and creates and perpetuates hatred War, because of it's violent nature and psychological effect upon it's participants, always results in excesses by the participants The reason(s) war is waged can many times be traced to "economic" factors (i.e., oil) rather than "doing the right thing" We've all read that "War is an extension of politics" When you think of all of the above factors, what does "glory," "pageantry," strategy, and tactics really do to counter them? I've played in American Civil War games where I fired canister at advancing troops; however, watching the Confederates attempting to climb over fences in the movie, Gettysburg, and seeing their bodies riddled by canister sickened me. I have read that following the Thirty Years War, people were so appalled by the devastation, destruction, and ferocity displayed toward noncombatants, that warfare was transposed to the "gentleman's" approach to war witnessed during the Seven Years' War where armies traveled across the countryside leaving the civilian population untouched (perhaps "relatively" untouched) which, I suppose, made it more "acceptable." Even if we accept the unlikely postulation that Seven Years War "Age of Reason" warfare affected only active participants, one is still left with the fact that soldiers are killed and maimed. In attempting to analyze for myself, I suppose the first thing to do is to sit down, over time, and come up with reasons why I enjoy this hobby: I love toy soldiers I love the look of a wargames table filled with terrain and toy soldiers I am fascinated with the effect of war on its participants I am challenged by reading everything I can find on a period and attempting to approximate it on the tabletop within the framework of weaponry and tactics I am moved by the "humanity" and self-sacrifice which can surface in warfare I would like to be able to say I am only interested in the "military" aspect, however, my 25mm Peninsula project has guerrillas I can lose myself in military history and my reading in this area prompts to me to learn more about the time and the people from a non-military sense I always enjoyed painting and obtained a great deal of relaxation and personal satisfaction from it Over the years my understanding of the participants in war has expanded; by that I mean to say I now believe, for the most part, a soldier is a soldier no matter which country he is fighting for - the "universal soldier" idea. In my youth I really believed only the "enemy" committed excesses - not by American soldiers - they wouldn't be capable of such acts. I now believe war brings out the worst in people, but, it also can bring out the best. Any country's soldiers are capable of the worst as they are capable of the best. This is where the listener would bring up German SS troops - fine, but you only have to read Guy Sajer's "The Forgotten Soldier" to realize there is a serious flaw in this argument. Sajer joined the SS as an "adventure" - how many young men have done that. He wasn't a mentally unbalanced man; he was an ordinary human being and this seemed to him, to be the "right" thing to do when he did it. I am not denying there were SS soldiers who were sadistic and inhuman. I am saying that I believe the "average" SS soldier could be a soldier in any nation's "shock/elite" unit. I suppose I am more comfortable in not being in a position to defend my hobby of wargaming. However, if put on the spot, I don't really believe I have convinced even myself with my reasons for being involved with wargaming. I remember some years ago, there was a running debate in MWAN regarding the subject of "Black Wargaming." I felt quite justified in condemning the topic until I realized that much of colonial wargaming, one of my loves, fits quite easily within the "Black Wargames" category. One could ask "why do we need to justify our hobby to other people at all?" I suppose we don't actually have to do that; however, I think we all like to be viewed within a "positive" light and have an "acceptable" rationale for what we do in our lives. I have long had a poorly defined thought in my mind, which Sam also addressed, that perhaps we are much better off being a "fringe" hobby without a lot of exposure. It may be possible that our lowly position in the public eye protects us from possible "attacks" - at the present time, we are, to nonwargamers, sort of interesting people to talk to for five or ten minutes as we explain what we do. Would we really want to be placed in a position where we are asked to defend what we do with our toys? I don't think I would want to.  I am reminded of the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era where anything associated with war was viewed by the public as negative. I surely felt, at that time, a fair degree of hesitancy in mentioning to friends what I did for a hobby. Times change - society's view of soldiers change - England, for many years, feared the thought of a standing army and despised their soldiers - at the same time, they loved being a world power with colonial holdings. France and Germany were major military powers for many years; Germans were viewed as military bent. What has been the case with them since the end of WWII? Society's view of war and soldiers changed within those countries. One way in which I personally rationalize my interest in war and wargaming to myself is that I believe war is, as I said before, an extension of politics and economics. It is unfortunate, but true. I don't remember where I read it, but a writer on the English Civil War related how the war could not be avoided because the concept or art of negotiation at that time was not at a high enough level so as to prevent the onset of the civil war. I think there is a great deal of truth in this. We have made progress in the art of negotiation over the years; we have also come to realize that wars are fought more for political and economic reasons than for what we used to believe - the "good war" concept. I don't think we are anywhere close to advancing our collective thought processes to the point where war is resorted to only as a true "last resort" to protect or defend a people. Perhaps that will happen in the future, but until that time, we have what we have. As regards colonial wargaming, my reading has convinced me, perhaps wrongly so, that a double standard is being applied to some of the colonial powers of the time. I can in no way justify the killing of seven million people in the Congo by the Belgians; nor can I justify the methods used by the Germans in German West Africa. However, I have read much of the Zulus - the Zulus became a great African power by swallowing up smaller and less powerful tribes through war, not by negotiation. The Zulu War occurred because the Boer and Zulu nations grew geographically close to each other and the British had economic reasons to intervene. The Zulus killed the Africans they encountered during their growth; the British killed the Zulus. What is the difference? Well, one could say the British had superior weaponry, which made the outcome predictable. You could also say it is one thing to kill your own country's people and quite another thing for another country to come in and kill people. Is it? Can we really say in any degree of certainty that any one geographical area "belongs" to any one people? Does our country belong to "us" because we currently occupy it? Didn't it once "belong" to the American Indians? Who did it "belong" to prior to them? Tariq's mention of "oppression" and "slaves" runs along the same lines. Is it preferable to be oppressed or enslaved by one's own people compared to those of another country? Does it make it more acceptable or right? I don't know. However, his mention of Africans not viewing colonial events as "wars" anymore than we, as Americans, view September 11th as a "battle" hits home. Points for you, Tariq. I can understand how the person we call a "terrorist" thinks of himself as a "freedom fighter" - I differ on the means utilized to achieve his objective. Perhaps it is unfortunate that "power" determines what belongs to whom. However, can it be denied that it is a fact of life; one of the many characteristics of man as a race that has resulted in the "advance" of "civilization" to bring us to the point in time we currently are at? As would be expected, there are positives and negatives involved in any human characteristic and war is the means we, as man, have utilized, and continue to use thankfully perhaps to a lesser degree, to achieve our goal(s). One point which I would like to make is my belief that people within our hobby of historical miniatures wargaming, not all of them certainly, seem to have an adhorrance for war. I would think that an outside observer would expect just the opposite to be the case. Perhaps, because of our extensive reading of the subject, we are more aware of its wide reaching effects. I would venture to say we may also have an increased intellectual understanding and grasp of what the motives and thought processes of the "enemy" are. How many of us have thought a little more than the average citizen about "why" they are doing what they are doing? I'd say quite a few of us. This "change" in thinking is, to me, the first step in reaching a point where we have the capacity to resolve differences without resorting to war. It decreases the "emotionality" factor and leads to a deeper understanding of both sides point of view. I apologize in advance for my rambling in this editorial; I've found the subject interesting to think about though difficult to put into written words. Sam did a far better job in expressing his thoughts than I could ever do and I thank him for stimulating my interest on the subject. I'd be interested in what you have to say about it - e-mail me at halmwan@hotmail.com I understand that the gentleman whom I consider to be the "Father" of our wonderful hobby, Donald Featherstone, recently suffered a heart attack but is back home and, I understand, doing well. Donald's address is 28 Gleve Court, Southampton, Hants, S02 1RH, UK. Our best wishes to you, Don, for a full recovery! Please let us know how you are doing. Thanks to all of you who have been sending me articles - don't stop! I can always use material. I've been a bit puzzled that MWAN's "Letters" column doesn't get more of a response, especially in view of the fact that the vast majority of us possess a computer with e-mail capability. Thank you for supporting MWAN as you do! Kindest Regards. Back to MWAN # 120 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2002 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com