A hypothetical scenario

[Suspicious Vlish]

I've decided to create a poll so that veteran Geneforgers can respond with their opinions on a hypothetical scenario.

 

Let's assume that the following alternative history occured:

 

World War II has concluded, and has resulted in a victorious Axis (Nazi Germany has conquered Europe, the Africas, and what was the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Imperial Japan has conquered all of the Pacific and much of Asia).

 

Imperial Japan's occupation of the United States is as brutal (if not worse) as the occupation of China during World War II. American citizens live in constant fear of an oppressor who abducts American citizens for use in forced labour camps, and as lab rats for cruel experiments.

 

At a whim, the Japanese invaders can execute any American citizen, without giving him a trial.

American political parties are banned, and even the slightest resentment of the occupying force (or the thought of United States Independence) is labelled as treason, and brutally crushed.

 

Now that I have set the hypothetical scenario, all that remains is for you to explain how you would respond to this Asian threat.

[Drakefyre]

I think there should have been an option between the last two options. I would probably be involved in a violent resistance that did not go nearly as far as the 4th option.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Drakey:

 

The option of violent 'non-extremist' resistance is made available in Option 3. Hence my expression 'Gentleman's war'.

[John S]

Disseminate venereal diseases? Sign me up! Fight the Yellow Terror!

[Emperor Tullegolar]

As long as you choose that last option, the occupation will be doomed to failure... just like all occupations. Besides, why should we afford them any less than the most extreme resistance, Drakey? It would not weigh on my conscience in the least to do those things to someone invading like that. Sure I'd seek assistance from Nazi Germany, why not? It's not like I can fight them while under Japan's heel.

[Zeviz]

Quote:

Originally written by Waylander:
Drakey:

The option of violent 'non-extremist' resistance is made available in Option 3. Hence my expression 'Gentleman's war'.

There is a wide range of options between "Gentlemen's war" and "distribute habit-forming drugs, encourage prostitution, disseminate venereal diseases, and engage in acts of wanton terrorism and violence".

Some things that fall into this range:
- attacking off-duty soldiers
- attacking military factories
- attacking railroads, bridges, and other infrastructure that can be used by both soldiers and civilians
- attacking power plants, machine shops, and other industry that has both military and civilian use
- kidnapping/killing political leaders
- kidnapping/killing relatives of leaders
- kidnapping/killing relatives of soldiers
- kidnapping/killing regular civilians

None of these things fall under the definition of "gentleman's war", but at least some of them (attacking off-duty soldiers and dual-use infrastructure) are necessary for any meaningful resistance against militarily-superior enemy.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Zeviz, if you're confused by what I mean when I say 'Gentleman's War', think of the Geneva Conventions. Sure, they probably wouldn't exist in the alternative history I created, but use the Geneva Conventions when attempting to determine how one conducts a 'Gentleman's War'.

[Zeviz]

Quote:

Originally written by Waylander:
Zeviz, if you're confused by what I mean when I say 'Gentleman's War', think of the Geneva Conventions. Sure, they probably wouldn't exist in the alternative history I created, but use the Geneva Conventions when attempting to determine how one conducts a 'Gentleman's War'.

I am not familiar with the exact text of Geneva Convention. Which of the actions I've listed are allowed by it?

Also, doesn't Geneva Convention require strict separation between soldiers, who must always wear a uniform, and civilians? If so, how exactly are you planning to gather and arm your military without occupiers stopping every weapons shipment and killing every person who walks down the street wearing your uniform?

[Dikiyoba]

Dikiyoba would also like an option between three and four. Diplomacy and a strong organizational structure sounds like too much to hope for, but an anything-goes rebellion isn't any better than a brutal occupation. Resistance fighters will have to be ruthless but hopfully they don't have to be complete monsters.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Zeviz:

 

Quote:

I am not familiar with the exact text of Geneva Convention. Which of the actions I've listed are allowed by it?

- attacking off-duty soldiers = Forbidden by Geneva Conventions. An off-duty/reserve soldier is not taking part in the conflict at the present, hence he is considered a civilian.

 

- attacking military factories = Fine by the Geneva Conventions.

 

- attacking railroads, bridges, and other infrastructure that can be used by both soldiers and civilians = Controversial. Witness Israel turning Lebanon's infrastructure to rubble. From what I understand, damaging infrastructure is not strictly forbidden, if the resulting damage to civilians is not excessive. It's been argued that Israel's destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure was excessive and unnecessary, and I'd be inclined to agree.

 

- attacking power plants, machine shops, and other industry that has both military and civilian use = Same as above.

 

- kidnapping/killing political leaders = Forbidden. Arresting them and subjecting them to a fair trial for war crimes is not.

 

- kidnapping/killing relatives of leaders = Forbidden.

 

- kidnapping/killing relatives of soldiers = Forbidden.

 

- kidnapping/killing regular civilians = Forbidden, although some allowance is made for collaterol damage. Once again, 'excessive' collaterol damage is frowned upon.

[Student of Trinity]

The Geneva Conventions are narrower than one might think. It doesn't look to me as though they protect occupying soldiers who are merely off duty.

 

Some of the rules people attribute to the Geneva Conventions are actually in the Hague Regulations of 1907, instead. Others are just things that should be so, but aren't.

 

In any case, the Geneva Conventions do not protect soldiers of countries which have not ratified the Geneva Conventions. Only the defeated Japan of real history ratified them, in 1953.

[Zeviz]

Waylander, could you keep RL politics to the General subforum, so that people who come here to get away from that mess wouldn't have to get involved in "debates" about Israel in game forums.

 

As for the original poll, I'd vote for option 3.5: The same level of violence gurillas(sp?) performed during real World War II. (The clarified Option 3 sounds the same as Option 2, with the only difference being that in former case collective suicide is performed by marching with handguns against tanks, and in latter case it's performed by marching with peace banners against tanks.)

[Drakefyre]

I'd also go for 3.5 ... think Warsaw Ghetto uprising but on a larger scale.

[Lord Safey]

I wouldn't corrupt the minds of childrend or sell drugs. I won't neccarly ally my self with nazi germany buy I would make some efforts to pit japan and germany against each other. I understand that an some of that activity might occur and to some degree is needed but one needs to keep in mind of the long term aftermath of such tatics when you win the war. I also will smack the person who said they would be complacent to the invadeing force.

 

Also I think it would be very hard logistically for Japan to invade America. Keep in mind that we out number them they are thousands of miles from their homeland makeing a logstical nightmare. Any succesful invasion of America will be less of army and more of a immigration. Keep the indians didn't loose America in one fell swoop they lost it due to a century of slow immigration with sporatic wars. Next time America changes hands I beleive it will be much in the same way.

[Randomizer]

Considering the US no longer has a coherent millitary, it is pretty much anything goes. You have to make occupation so painful that there isn't any reason to stay. If there is no centralized resistance, then you can go after the leadership. This is the difference between this hypothetical scenario and the problems in the Middle East. There you have a command structure directing the rebellion and if it is destroyed then most of the rebellion will stop.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Lord Safey:
I also will smack the person who said they would be complacent to the invadeing force.

That'd be me, and you're kidding yourself if you honestly believe you wouldn't do the same. I don't believe for a second that 11 out of 12 people here would really risk their lives in an attempt to fight off an occupation.

[Archaeolagent]

I voted that way as well... and ditto.

 

If I really felt the need to martyr myself in the face of every evil, unfair situation I was confronted with, I wouldn't have made it very far in the world, or helped much of anything.

 

People with power generally do awful, wretched things. But unless I actually have the power to stop them, I'm not going to add throwing my life away to the list of things I blame them for.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

I'll join the fight to free my country from invasive forces. Anyone who wouldn't, doesn't deserve to live in a country that does have freedoms.

[Aran]

Reminds me of a poll I saw on NationStates about two years ago. I blogged about it here .

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Arancaytar:
Reminds me of a poll I saw on NationStates about two years ago. I blogged about it here .

Quote:

More than half would risk their lives in a fight against the invading power, mostly without hesitation, and nearly another quarter would lend their support in other ways.

Correction: more than half said they would. Given what you know about the history of actual resistance movements, does it strike you as even remotely plausible that they'd really do so? Show me any historical occupation in which more than half the population of the occupied country formed part of an armed resistance, and I will eat my hat. And don't give me any guff about those who responded to the poll not being a representative sample of the general population; they can't be that unrepresentative.

Seriously, guys. I know we all want to play at being heroes, but if you had that kind of courage in real life you'd already be off doing aid work in Sudan instead of gabbing away on a message board.

[Kelandon]

What on earth does this have to do with GF?

 

What I'd do would depend on how screwed I'd be in the situation. If my entire home and livelihood were taken away and I were tossed out on the streets, I'd probably engage in some semi-criminal (and presumably violent) activity both for survival and resistance. If not (which I think is more likely, but we're talking WWII here, so who knows), I'd engage in some careful and well-placed passive resistance. No use in dying pointlessly.

 

Moreover, people don't fight wars. Governments fight wars. Individuals who try to fight wars against governments get killed pretty quickly. Count me among the forces of defense when the armies are invading, but once we've lost, count me in the number of people committing silent sabotage in the rare moments when it is possible and otherwise whispering and hoping for freedom. Seize the opportunity to push for overthrow when it comes, but until then, one has to wait.

[Aran]

Given that the entire poll was about people saying what they would do, adding an extra subjunctive struck me as redundant.

 

Honesty (to oneself, too) is another factor, of course. For example, there was this story yesterday about a man jumping on a subway track to save a stranger, and I read comments by people saying they'd do the same. Yeah right - maybe they wish they would, but the danger is a lot more tangible from close up.

 

And no, I have no idea why this is in GF. Too bad this mod thing doesn't work backwards, or I'd take it to General.

[Emperor Tullegolar]

I would have no problem 'corrupting the minds of children.' How would it be corrupting them anyway if all your doing is telling them how evil the people that are invading your country are? I see no issues with that.

 

Upon further consideration, I'm not sure I understand the "sell drugs' and 'encourage prostitution' parts. How does it help the resistance to screw up your own society? That part doesn't seem to make much sense.

Quote:

Originally written by Cryptozoology:

I don't believe for a second that 11 out of 12 people here would really risk their lives in an attempt to fight off an occupation.

Are you saying that American society as a whole is generally cowardly (something I don't beleive) or that the people on these boards are generally cowardly (something that may very well be true)?

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Emperor Tullegolar:

 

Quote:

Are you saying that American society as a whole is generally cowardly (something I don't beleive) or that the people on these boards are generally cowardly (something that may very well be true)?

He's saying that people in general are cowardly.

 

(The only reason I voted for resistence is because I don't believe I could "stay below the radar" forever. If I could stay safe by doing nothing, I probably would.)

 

Dikiyoba.

[Retlaw May]

Fear is effective and people have a tendency to keep their heads down during a storm. I would be supprised if even 1 out of 12 America adults would take part in constant active (some violence included) resistance. Most people would just wait out the storm and hope they don't get blown away.

[Drakefyre]

Well, resistance is in my blood and my history, and I know that from my group of friends, I'd be one of the most likely to resist. I'd imagine Zeviz is the same way, but I don't know about anyone else.

[Micawber]

Good heavens, I'm the only one to vote for passive resistance. In real life, I think quite a number of people would choose this option.

[Retlaw May]

You are the only one because people hold grand illusions as to what they would do. But when the time comes most won't. Talk is fine and all, but it is rarely backed up by action.

[Aequitas]

I would probably stay in my room with some rubber tubing and plastic piping. Also an air compressor, a bucket of golf balls, a rubber sealer, a 2x4, and a quarterstaff.

 

(Those few members who have been to the Spudtech website will know what I am talking about. )

 

I would probably take the defensive stand and defend my own territory. Aggressiveness is just too suicidal against such odds.

[nikki.]

I'm thinking this is here because the Shapers and the Resistance or supposed to be Nazi Germany and Japan...

 

Anyway, I think either 1 or 4... It depends on a lot of things - I'd describe myself as quite quixotic. Although, I also think Thuyrl has a good point... (yay a story!!)

 

In secondary school (so when I was about 14 or 15), we were rushed to an emergency assembly and told that the school was under siege. Our teachers told us they wanted volunteers to try and find out where the people attacking where coming from, with the risk of certain death if found. About a dozen people out of 500 or so volunteered, myself included.

 

Of course, we weren't under siege, and once outside, we volunteers were let in on the idea - it was something about War awareness or something they were trying to teach (and obviously it worked, since I forget the point ).

 

Still, only about 2% of the population reacted in a way comparable to choices 3 and 4. And sure, maybe age is an issue, and maybe the scenario is different, but the fact remains that half of us didn't stand forward when asked to, even be people we supposedly respected.

 

In fact, my school was bad about things like this - earlier on when we were 11 or so, we were told that there had been an outbreak of plague...

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Thuryl, rather than castigate those who profess the desire to stand up and fight for freedom (yours and theirs) why not congratulate them and hope for success? Why must you provide doubt that either they will succeed or carry through with their mission? It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to further the cause of the invading forces.

 

But you knew that, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted time posting the messages.

[Emperor Tullegolar]

Quote:

He's saying that people in general are cowardly.

Quote:

Fear is effective and people have a tendency to keep their heads down during a storm.

Yeah, try telling this nonsense to the people of Vietnam. Or Algeria. Or anywhere that was forced to undergo a long occupation. The example occupations I used weren't even as brutal as this hypothetical one sounds.

I think you all underestimate the resolve of humans. Lets take me as an example. I am not a fighter. Despite the things I say, I would piss my pants in a real war. I would never fight willingly in places like Iraq, Vietnam, or even in wars worth fighting, like World War II. However, everything changes when your way of life is under attack. If I can't live the way I want to, suddenly pissing my pants doesn't seem like such a bad option. I can safely say I would be willing to fight and die to preserve the way I live right now. Living under the will of a foreign nation is as good as living as living as a slave, and I will not be a slave.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Spent Salmon:
Why must you provide doubt that either they will succeed or carry through with their mission?

If those were either of the things that he doubted, this comment might make more sense.

[Zeviz]

Aran, in the analysis you posted on your blog, you are forgetting that the main factor in whether people chose to resist the occupation is their feelings about their old government and the occupying force. An illustration of that was a poll by Tullegolar where people's willingness to defend their country ranged from few people being willing to find another similar nation to almost everybody being willing to fight Martian invaders who want to enslave or destroy humanity.

 

Quote:

Originally written by Micawber.:

Good heavens, I'm the only one to vote for passive resistance. In real life, I think quite a number of people would choose this option.

That's because passive resistance works only against people with conscience. The occupiers described here have no problem sending people to death camps, or monstrous medical experiments, so they aren't going to hesitate to kill anybody trying to organize a demonstration. Your death wouldn't even succeed in encouraging others to join your cause, because if people weren't convinced by other atrocities, they will not be convinced by your death either.

 

As for whether people saying that they would follow option 3.5 would go through with it, that might depend on their upbringing, as much as personality. If the simulation Nikki described in his post had been performed in a Soviet school, a lot more kids would have volunteered. (This is not necessarily a good thing, but some balance is needed between the extremes of being excessively militaristic and being unwilling to ever defend your country.)

[Micawber]

Quote:

Originally written by Zeviz:
That's because passive resistance works only against people with conscience.

The point is not whether resistance works, but what methods are morally justifiable. Option 4 seems to me to be clearly immoral. Option 1 involves hypocritically pretending to agree with the occupying regime, so that's out as well. Option 3 is just as unlikely to succeed as 2 but involves violence. Therefore Option 2 is the preferred moral choice.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

It then becomes clear we don't all share the same morals.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
Yeah, try telling this nonsense to the people of Vietnam. Or Algeria. Or anywhere that was forced to undergo a long occupation. The example occupations I used weren't even as brutal as this hypothetical one sounds.

And what percentage of the population was actively involved in those resistance movements? A small minority in every case.

Quote:

Living under the will of a foreign nation is as good as living as living as a slave, and I will not be a slave.

We're all slaves to something.

[Drakefyre]

Quote:

Originally written by Cryptozoology:

Quote:

Living under the will of a foreign nation is as good as living as living as a slave, and I will not be a slave.

We're all slaves to something.

I can either disagree with this or point out that the things I'd consider myself a slave to, are all things that I would want anyway.

[Nioca]

Option 3.25 is the one for me. Basically, I'd start an underground resistance, slowly picking off the invaders one-by-one. Maybe not as impressive as a blatant, out-in-the-open resistance, but I'd survive longer, and it would probably be more effective.

Quote:

Originally written by Thuryl:

Seriously, guys. I know we all want to play at being heroes, but if you had that kind of courage in real life you'd already be off doing aid work in Sudan instead of gabbing away on a message board.

Firstly, I'm not sure a bunch of under-21-year-olds are going to help much in the Sudan (Recent polls and censuses have shown that the two leading age majorities on these boards are collage-age and teenagers). Secondly, why go off and fix other nations' troubles when we have crippling problems of our own right here in the good old U.S.A? The Bush Administration has seen to that. Thirdly, there's a lot of good to be done in our own country. We don't have to run off to a foreign country just to prove we're courageous, or to do good.

 

And as for being a coward: I'm sure that people in the topic situation have a right to be somewhat cowardly, no?

Quote:

Originally written by Zeviz:

that might depend on their upbringing, as much as personality.

I think it also depends on your ancestry. If there's violence in your ancestry, you're probably more likely to be violent yourself. I have more opinions on this subject, but it's getting off-topic as it is.

Quote:

Originally written by Arancaytar:

And no, I have no idea why this is in GF.

Well, war has been discussed quite a bit on this particular forum, so...

[Alberich]

A few things to keep in mind. Firstly, with any kind of resistance, passive or otherwise, a really brutal occupier has a simple way around it: reprisals. Speak to a crowd, and everyone who stays to listen to you disappears. If three soldiers die in an ambush, 30 citizens of the nearest village are shot. Support for the resistance would dry up fast! And the moral equation becomes a lot harder then; yes, you can say that they, not you, have just killed thirty of your neighbors, but it still doesn't feel right to do a beautiful, heroic, and futile act that dooms them.

 

The Polish Uprising would be my model. That is to say, secretly train units for open warfare...but do not do any actual "resisting" until after the German and Japanese empires are locked in a death struggle; then field the secretly trained units and otherwise support the German side in the war - e.g., ambush convoys on their way to the front, when the Japanese have no time or resources to spare for the reprisals, and conduct espionage for the Germans.

 

And keep that cell structure intact and those suicide pills handy.

 

I don't call anyone a coward for picking another option, and I don't think any of us really knows how brave he is (or whether he can kill) until he actually faces the situation.

[Drakefyre]

That will eventually reach a breaking point, though. There's a portion of the population that figures if they might die for nothing as part of a reprisal, they might as well die for something and form/join a resistance. There's actually a movie coming out in a while about this in apartheid South Africa.

[Upon Mars.]

Tensions break out in a society when something is left unchecked and slowly rotting away.

Violence must break out one day or another because we can't control our power and our emotions.

BUT what about Europe i am sure that the furer would be killed for his madness communists would back up in the northern parts of russia and attack by up-rises in every country under german occupation we would speak german and be mind manipulated by nazis and don't like oppressing others for their faiths and their so called races every country in Europe would speak german an italian so what could be the world after that?

BUT if the try negotiate option wouldn't work:

 

The martian goes to war.

Pepole are mostly conformists pepole that follow orders without thinking or thinking very little others are strong minded either are neglected by society or are chosen to be the light of society for a short time.

[Alberich]

Drakefyre, true, the resistance would have to be held under iron discipline to stop frustrated hotheads from ruining everything before the time was ripe - it would need its own prosecutors and executioners, and in some ways would have to be as ruthless as the oppressors.

 

(Rent The Informer with Victor McLaglen to see what that side of things might look like...or just to see a great performance.)

[Upon Mars.]

I would say that no one is shure about what he is going to do in a violent society i would bend to it's violent rules? I don't know.

And most pepole adapt to situations so that is why hitler dinot have a lot resistance is that most pepole are conformists pepole like us that won't be bothered by any big decision .

[Suspicious Vlish]

Wow, this thread has turned out to be quite a success. I think that most (if not all) posters here are aware as to what I am alluding to with my hypothetical scenario.

 

What's interesting here is that a majority of individuals have chosen option 4, where you will do 'anything it takes' to resist oppression, no matter how unethical it may seem.

And yet, it seems that when it comes to the issue of the Shapers vs. the Rebellion, posters seem to have very little sympathy for the Rebellion. Mostly because it is too bloodthirsty.

 

Perhaps now that I've painted a analogy which is more relevant to our lives, people can at least be a little more sympathetic towards the Rebellion's perceived extremism.

 

Why was Nazi Germany mentioned? It does NOT represent the Rebellion, as one poster suggested. More accurately, it represents the Drakon alliance.

 

The serviles, humans and drayks of the Rebellion are often criticized for allying themselves with the megalomaniac Drakons (Nazi Germany), who may not be ethically superior to the Shapers (Imperial Japan). But as Emperor Tug pointed out earlier:

 

Quote:

Sure I'd seek assistance from Nazi Germany, why not? It's not like I can fight them while under Japan's heel.

Many would say that the serviles/humans/drayks are merely exchanging one master for another. But that's not a given. It's not even really known whether the Drakons will be on top of the food chain when the war ends.

 

What IS a given is that in their current condition, serviles, humans and drayks suffer under the complete and total control of an oppressive Shaper regime, and have done so for as long as they can remember. The crimes of Shaper rule against non-Shapers are well documented.

 

When you're desperate, you get the help which you have available. Not the help which you'd necessarily want. Allying yourself with a megalomaniac is not an act of evil. It's an act of desperation.

 

This has been demonstrated time and time again. A rather nice example is Poland. During the early 1800's, after the Partitioning of Poland between Austria, Prussia and Russia, the Polish served with distinction under Napoleon Bonaparte. They did so because Napoleon promised to do his best in order to carve a new Poland out of Europe. Sadly, due to Liepzig and Waterloo, he wasn't successful.

 

During WW1, Poland was willing to support Germany in order to liberate itself from Russian rule.

 

During WW2, they allied themselves with the Russians in order to liberate themselves from Russian rule.

 

Quite simply, I do not see the Drakons as 'the' Rebellion, but a Nazi Germany. A necessary evil, which the Rebellion must (temporarily) ally itself with. They are powerful, but there are relatively few of them when compared to the rest of the Rebellion.

 

Those in the front lines, those marching in rank and file, are serviles, humans, drayks, and rogue Shapers. They are more numerous, and if they truly wished it, they could shake off the Drakons like a horse shakes the flies away with its tail.

 

No doubt people are going to start and nitpick my analogy. Yes yes, it's not 100% similiar. That's what makes an analogy an analogy. What is important is that it demonstrates that:

 

1. The majority of posters here appear to be willing to engage in methods of resistance which are 'extreme', when they are being held in thrall by a highly oppressive regime. Whether it is foreign, or an 'indigenous' strata of society (think the 'Inner Party' from 1984, or the Royalists in France), is not really relevant. Oppression is oppression, whether it is being dealt out by foreigners, or by a strata of the said society.

 

2. These posters also seem to have no qualms about allying themselves with a highly questionable foreign regime, in order to fight their oppressor. This demonstrates that when under oppression, it is wise to take whatever allies you can get, even if they megalomaniacs.

 

My apologies to those who feel that the poll offers too few options, but I feel that the main ones have been covered. I can't rightly include every option, including every act which you may be/may not be willing to commit against the regime. The poll would be three pages long. If you have a '3.25' opinion, it might be a good idea to round down and vote for option three.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Alberich:

Quote:

A few things to keep in mind. Firstly, with any kind of resistance, passive or otherwise, a really brutal occupier has a simple way around it: reprisals. Speak to a crowd, and everyone who stays to listen to you disappears. If three soldiers die in an ambush, 30 citizens of the nearest village are shot. Support for the resistance would dry up fast!

I suggest you read 'The Moon is Down' by John Steinbeck. He argues that when occupiers use the harsh tactics which you describe, support for the resistance would actually increase.

 

Collective punishment only increases resentment amongst the occupied, and hence encourages resistance. Witness Israel's use of collective punishment against the Palestinians and Lebanese in order to 'suppress terrorism' (this is merely an example. And yet, we observe the opposite effect (this is merely used as an example, not to open a new point of discussion).

 

The Nazis also employed collective punishment, to their detriment.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Waylander:

 

Quote:

1. The majority of posters here appear to be willing to engage in methods of resistance which are 'extreme', when they are being held in thrall by a highly oppressive regime. Whether it is foreign, or an 'indigenous' strata of society (think the 'Inner Party' from 1984, or the Royalists in France), is not really relevant. Oppression is oppression, whether it is being dealt out by foreigners, or by a strata of the said society.

Can I nitpick? 45% is not "the majority". (Plus you have to take into consideration some people might have "voted" for option 3.5 by voting for option 4.) The majority of people say they would fight, certainly, but it's rather misleading to say that the majority of voters would do whatever it takes.

 

But you've created an interesting discussion and tied it back into the game, so kudos from Dikiyoba.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Dikiyobi:

 

Quote:

Can I nitpick? 45% is not "the majority".

45% can be a majority, if each of the other three options received less than 45% of the votes. If there are more than two options available, the majority can be less than 50%.

 

Remember, Tony Blair was voted in on a majority of less than 50%. Perhaps the word 'majority' has a slightly different meaning in American politics (note: I'm Australian).

 

Either way, Option 4 has received far more votes than Options 1, 2 or 3. That is what is important here.

 

Quote:

The majority of people say they would fight, certainly, but it's rather misleading to say that the majority of voters would do whatever it takes.

We could quibble over this, but I think it's obvious that the poll does suggest that people will take extreme measures (which are often labelled as 'radical' by spectators) against extreme oppression.

 

Quote:

But you've created an interesting discussion and tied it back into the game, so kudos from Dikiyoba.

Thanks!

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Waylander:

 

Quote:

45% can be a majority, if each of the other three options received less than 45% of the votes. If there are more than two options available, the majority can be less than 50%.

 

Remember, Tony Blair was voted in on a majority of less than 50%. Perhaps the word 'majority' has a slightly different meaning in American politics (note: I'm Australian).

You're probably right. Dikiyoba just read that point with a "people who will take extreme measures vs. people who will not take extreme measures" perspective.

[Emperor Tullegolar]

The word of the day is plurality: the most votes but still less than 50%.

 

In your analogy, are the Shapers represented by Japan? This makes the Shapers looks far worse than they really are. For one, the Shapers aren't a foriegn government like the Japanese would be in America. Also, I don't think the Shapers treat the people nearly as bad as the Japanese in your description. I know I'm nitpicking, but that explains the contradiction in my coices. I would go with the Shapers in the Geneforge war, but I would go with the nation not invading me in the hypothetical real world war. According to your analogy, those are two different sides.