>>6323834>I had an idea for the player character's country to be a kinda beacon of light amid a sea of totalitarianism, communists pressing on one side and racial purists / fascists on the other. Total war to defend democracy or something. And the player character's ministerial cabinet and high command is assembled as an emergency measure to rescue the situation after the previous one failed.>I've just become hesitant about writing from the bad guys pov haha. If you don't much like writing from a "bad guy's" pov then a democratic society strained to its absolute limit by being on the losing side of a total war might not be your cup of tea. Especially considering that liberal democracies find it difficult to maintain the principle of personal freedom and expression in any time but prosperity and peace. Extreme wartime rationing, conscription, nationalization of private industries, all these things that were quite normal in the world wars are extremely undemocratic but seen as a product of necessity. The same goes for freedom of speech and free assembly, or even democratic representation in and of itself. Even if the elections aren't suspended, war emergency powers don't usually have the considerations of the public in mind.
Not to get into some overwrought thesis about morality in war, but I think it's important to consider that the whole reason that something like the Endsieg concept was not something decided upon by the people of Germany from the beginning, but rather thrust upon them when everything was collapsing. A democracy that forbids its people from even speaking about the possibility of capitulation, defeat, or surrender will very quickly look extremely hypocritical and unpleasant, and hard to be a radical in support of. Yet if such restrictions aren't imposed, then how many protests and desertions and strikes are going to be tolerated if they're indirectly aiding the enemy in your darkest hour? The victors might write history, but fighting to the last man as a nation usually involves having to make some very morally questionable decisions no matter who you're up against and no matter how morally just your system of governance claims to be. Some extremely unpleasant acts in history weren't made out of spite alone, but of practicality of total war. Blockading a country to starve their citizens to death is very mean, so is seizing the food stores of an occupied territory to feed your own citizens and soldiers. Yet that's just what happens no matter how many people have the right to vote.
To summarize I'd just say to embrace it. Being forced to make choices where nobody looks good is good drama, and nobody's lives are at stake in a fictional setting. But trying to be the goodest good guy in a scenario where you're being trusted to wield power in desperate times would logically end with either a bullet or with rotting in prison and wondering whether you'd prefer to be executed by the people who betrayed you or your blood enemy.
